CBI was a net loss for us so far. It was a very large volume of work just to get our build back to its old state. There is benefit for others in the community to make it easier for them to run builds independently. For committers it hasn't delivered value yet.and started immediately wondering who was the "us", and why it was "a net loss".
Fedora had it's own Eclipse build system, which was 8 x faster than current CBI build (15 minutes vs 2 hours on non-SSD drive). I've spent a lot of time getting Eclipse built with Fedora and switched to CBI before the Foundation did.
All that was (and still is) a cost, but was it really "a loss"?
I find it rather as a first step towards a really necessary move - Eclipse Foundation taking responsibility on development. The build system is first, then maybe we will get vendor-neutral architects or UX designers.
Another point is that once it is possible to easily rebuild Eclipse, we can see even right now internal Eclipse teams appearing here and there, which tend to become really valuable contributors.
Not to mention that after Kim left, it took about a month to get builds running again (at the Eclipse Foundation, we had them running in Fedora). Is it ok to have so much power depending on one person (because that is what happens if you have a large ant-based build)?
I'm sorry but I can't agree with a "net loss". It was a necessary cost. Good for the Eclipse Foundation. Good for the Eclipse.
BTW. I really hope some day UX designers or architects will be hired by Eclipse Foundation.