Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Polarsys/UseCases"
< Polarsys
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | = | + | =Structure of the ecosystem= |
| + | Few large companies offer wide range support as Master Service Provider (MSP). | ||
| + | Branded SMEs work as sub contractor of the MSPs specialized for a given project as Project Service Provider (PSP). | ||
| + | |||
| + | This type of ecosystem is easier to manage by End User companies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Support= | ||
How to ensure that a bug is fixed in a timely fashion, given that the Polarsys WG does not have enough ressources to provide such services ?<br> | How to ensure that a bug is fixed in a timely fashion, given that the Polarsys WG does not have enough ressources to provide such services ?<br> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 27: | ||
=Feature Request= | =Feature Request= | ||
| − | |||
Feature requests should be treated the same way: | Feature requests should be treated the same way: | ||
Revision as of 10:22, 30 May 2012
Contents
Structure of the ecosystem
Few large companies offer wide range support as Master Service Provider (MSP).
Branded SMEs work as sub contractor of the MSPs specialized for a given project as Project Service Provider (PSP).
This type of ecosystem is easier to manage by End User companies.
Support
How to ensure that a bug is fixed in a timely fashion, given that the Polarsys WG does not have enough ressources to provide such services ?
A solution could be the following:
- Users that want professional support subscribe to a professional services offer provided by a Branded Polarsys Provider, which could include:
- Advice, explanations regarding the use of the tools;
- Bug fixes;
- In order to distinguish from the Polarsys WG and therefore be able to have a sustainable business model, Branded Polarsys Providers must offer additional added value, which could be :
- the provision of validated binaries that are not provided by the Polarsys WG, and
- the provision of customer-specific releases when there is an urgent and important bug to be fixed;
- To provide for VLTS, support contracts should include the following best practices:
- All patches should be given back to the Polarsys LTS branch,
- unless there is a good technical or confidentiality reason provided.
- The Polarsys WG would provide to its members a demo version only to avoid competing with Branded providers.
Open questions:
- Support Contracts are accessible only to Polarsys members ?
- who controls the Polarsys VLTS branch ?
- What if there is no Branded provider in a given area ?
Feature Request
Feature requests should be treated the same way:
- When someone needs a new feature, he does it as part of a contract with a Branded Polarsys provider;
- The development should be given back to the Polarsys LTS branch, unless there is a good technical not to do so; this way, users are sure not to pay two times for the same feature;
Open questions:
- Is it possible to find a system that allow users sharing the development costs ?
- If we use a system based on good will, we are likely to end up in a situation where urgent needs are funded by individual users, no matter the Polarsys roadmap, and non-urgent needs will remain unfunded forever;
- A mandatory system is likely not to be approved.
Configuration Management is a transverse issue to Bug Fix and Feature Requests
Too many versions tends towards a custom development model and lowers economy of scale. In order to save money and allow affordable support, we need to tend to COTS.