[ide-dev] IDE working group purpose and scope

[John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I realize it is just a rough draft but
I have a comment on the stated purpose and scope in the working group proposal
[1]. The project scope lists two main goals:

1) providing input
on roadmap and directions for interested Eclipse projects
2) sustainable funding for developing of the Eclipse IDE


Goal 1) as worded is problematic. I
interpret this as: Paying members of the IWG telling other committers what
to do with their time. As someone mentioned in the earlier thread, this
sounds like the old Requirements Council which was an essentially toothless
body because nobody was required to accept their input. To me, the core
goal should be 2), and any influence and direction the IWG has on Eclipse
projects would flow from that.  Here is my attempt to reword the scope
with that in mind:

The goal of the IDE Industry Working Group (short IDEWG)
is to ensure future relevance of the Eclipse IDE by providing sustainable
funding for developing of the Eclipse IDE, and directing use of that funding
towards long term improvements to the IDE quality and functionality.

I think if the core focus of the IWG
becomes an exercise in gathering, discussing, and prioritizing requirements
it has the potential to waste a lot of people's time and not accomplish
much. If the focus is on getting funding and putting that straight into
development it has the potential to do a lot of good. Obviously it has
to do some planning to decide what to do with the funding, and show accountability
to the IWG members in how it spent the funds, but that is secondary to
the objective of getting more bodies writing code. Phrasing it this way
also feels like something people will be able to sell to their management
chain: Here is a way to allocate some money that will go directly towards
improving the Eclipse IDE. Rather than: Here is a group we can join where
we will get together with 100 other companies and itemize priorities for
the Eclipse IDE. It is a subtle distinction in wording but I believe an
important one.

John

[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/IDE_Working_Group_Proposal