Wayne Beaton is employed by The Eclipse Foundation where he works as an evangelist, spreading the word and helping folks adopt Eclipse technologies. Wayne has extensive experience in object-oriented software development and is a strong proponent of refactoring, unit testing, and agile development methodologies. He is also the editor-in-chief of Eclipse Corner, PMC Lead for the Technology Project, Project Lead for the Examples Project, and an advisor for osbootcamp. In 1982, he received the prestigious Chief Scouts Award from then-Governor General Edward Schreyer. In 1984 his team was selected to represent beautiful British Columbia in the Kinsmen Voyageur Relay. In his spare time, he writes down meaningless accomplishments from his youth in a lame attempt to impress the reader. Wayne is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 77 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

The Eclipse Hudson Proposal

05.25.2011
| 5164 views |
  • submit to reddit

This post is a reworked version of a response that I posted on the eclipse.proposals forum.

I cannot recall any project proposal garnering so much discussion and stirring as much emotion as the recent proposal to move Hudson to Eclipse. Frankly, this is the first time that anybody has ever–in my memory–explicitly voted on a project proposal. I thought it would be valuable for me to take a few minutes out to discuss how this works at Eclipse.

For starters, there is no provision the Eclipse Development Process for voting on whether or not a proposal will be accepted. It is the case, that the opinions expressed by Eclipse committers and the community are taken into account as part of this process; as is the responsiveness of the project proposers to questions, criticisms, and other concerns.

The purpose of the proposal period is to develop community, and for the “proposers, in conjunction with the destination PMC and the community, collaborate in public to enhance, refine, and clarify the proposal.” (section 6.2.2) I am very happy that members of the community have expressed their opinions and have posed so many thoughtful, and important questions. I am equally happy that–in my opinion–the project proposers have been doing a fantastic job of addressing the all of the issues presented in a timely, courteous, and professional manner.

The EDP does not explicitly state with whom the decision of whether or a project proposal has advanced enough to warrant a move to a creation review. In practical terms, however, that decision is made by me upon request by the proposers. The creation review provides the community with one last chance to ask the hard questions before we declare success and actually create the project, or declare failure and withdraw the proposal.

For completeness, in section 6.3 the EDP states that the “EMO(ED) approves or fails the Review based on the public comments, the scope of the Project, and the Purposes of the Eclipse Foundation as defined in the Bylaws.” EMO(ED) refers to the “subset of the EMO consisting of the Executive Director and whomever he or she may delegate that specific approval authority to.” (section 4) In this particular case, authority has been granted to me.

In the case of the Hudson proposal, I have been watching this communication channel (and others) carefully. I believe that the proposal is quite clear on intent, that community concerns are being adequately addressed, that significant community is developing around the proposal, and that the contributor community is diverse and dedicated. In short, the Hudson proposal should soon be ready to move to a creation review.

Be sure that your voice is heard on the eclipse.proposals forum.

 

From http://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-eclipse-hudson-proposal/

Published at DZone with permission of Wayne Beaton, author and DZone MVB.

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)

Comments

Zqudlyba Navis replied on Wed, 2011/05/25 - 7:12am

Eclipse is becoming more and more of a clearing house for abandonware projects.

Jonathan Fisher replied on Wed, 2011/05/25 - 3:13pm in response to: Zqudlyba Navis

Zqudlyba that's pure opinion and speculation at that. If you really want to make a point, you should really cough up facts showing how the Hudson platform doesn't have any more commits or that X number of people were abandoning Hudson and running for higher ground.

Here's the elephant in the room:
Jenkins fork wasn't about source control, it was about a few of the project leads pushing their anti-Oracle agenda onto the community and leveraging the community's dissatisfaction (with Oracle). This was done as a means to gain power in their pet project. Once dissatisfaction subsides for Oracle (time heals all wounds), their power will decrease as they can no longer manipulate the community.

The best open source projects (Linux, Eclipse, Hibernate, etc) are stable because they have paid development by large commercial companies. With Oracle, Eclipse, IBM, and Sonatype backing Hudson, my money is where the money is, which is Hudson.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.