Reaching Oz (i.e. the shining city of integrated dev tools for the Propeller) is fraught with danger, unless all the relatively independent efforts follow the same yellow brick road and communicate regularly.
One very important matter I see regarding communication is that none of the initiatives undertaken by Parallax staff or outside contractors can be even remotely independent of each other. The various compilers, the IDEs, a redesigned OBEX, and the Gold Standard are all so intimately entwined, that a decision in one area will affect design objectives in another. Here's just one example: In Roy's Spin compiler thread, there has been a discussion about how to specify in the OBJ section where the various objects reside. One thing that I brought up is that there are too many objects available to have them all in one monolithic library, and that the library should be configured hierarchically into categories and sub-categories. For example, FullDuplexSerial, might become IO::Serial::FullDuplexSerial, IOW a member of the "Serial" volume in the "IO" library. This has far-reaching repercussions across the board. It means that the OBEX must also be organized hierarchically, with a mechanism for making sure that downloaded objects get installed in their proper locations. It means that whoever writes the IDE has to account for this organization when program archives are created, and it means that the Gold Standard will also need to include standards for object naming and categorization.
This is just one example. Decisions by one designer or design team have consequences for all the others. I really wonder if the channels of communication among the various efforts are open enough to accommodate this very necessary interaction. I'm not implying that they aren't, though, as I'm not privy to any of those channels, except what I read here in the forum. In any event, it would be nice to hear from the various principals regarding this matter. In fact, I haven't seen a thing about how the OBEX redesign is coming along or who is working on it. I may have missed it.
The impression I get, evident from postings in the forum, is that the dev-tool effort is being worked on by a fairly loose consortium of contributors. But this could certainly be a misperception on my part. At least I have to assume so, since a laissez faire management approach to this kind of undertaking could never attain any kind of coherent objective.