BTW, here's a great article Ian Skerrett posted on twitter. Says a lot of the things we've been saying:
stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2013/07/patterns-and-practices-for-open-sou rce-software-success.html Eclipse is even mentioned as a good example, but we've never really been that good at: "Out of this user base, attract developers". And that's where I think we can grow. Doug. On 13-07-17 4:24 PM, "Doug Schaefer" <dschae...@qnx.com> wrote: >The secret is simple. Manage the project differently, if barely at all. >Let the contributors manage it. Be open, really open. > >And automate as much as you can so you aren't relying on individuals so >much. Hell, I've managed to do that with our commercial product builds. >(Jenkins, uh, I mean Hudson/Tycho rule!). > >On 13-07-17 4:13 PM, "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org> >wrote: > >> >>> I'm not sure why we're always expecting companies to drop bus loads of >>> developers into projects when we have a pretty healthy individual >>>contributor >>> community already at Eclipse. In fact, over half of CDT contributions >>>of late are >>> coming from individuals, not companies. And it's really coming from >>>users who >>> have the skills to contribute back and not only make their lives >>>better, but others >>> as well, and get rewarded by seeing their work on the big stage. >> >>That is really good news for CDT. I wish we had a lot more projects that >>were in your position. But the flip side is that the platform is not in >>that position today. Others will have to speak to what it will take to >>get to a position as enviable as CDT's. >> >>In addition, the key resources that we have supporting the simultaneous >>release process like David and Markus are, in fact, supported by member >>companies. And as far as I know, they are tapped out. I do not think >>that we can realistically ask them to do more. And if we want them to do >>something different, I for one would prefer to hear from them what they >>would like to change. Maybe I'm wrong, and they would be perfectly happy >>to push out two release trains a year (for example). >> >>> So really, the changes I'm talking about, more frequent release cycles, >>>creating a >>> list of features and bugs we'd like fixed, is aimed at attracting more >>>individuals to >>> the party. And I'm pretty sure there are some companies who would like >>>to see >>> the same. Create the buzz and companies may take another look. >> >>We are certainly agreed about the need to attract more contributors of >>all types. The Eclipse Foundation has also been pushing this agenda for >>the last couple of years. Embracing git, implementing CBI, project >>hosting at GitHub, and switching to CLAs are all examples of things that >>we did specifically to help reduce barriers to contribution. >> >>I agree that we need to increase the pace of innovation. My point is that >>I don't see a realistic discussion on this thread about resourcing the >>changes that we would all like to see. I would love to be wrong. >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >>cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org >>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > >_______________________________________________ >cross-project-issues-dev mailing list >cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org >https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
