Fast is good, and I'm all for making things as easy as possible.
However, there are certain openness and transparency requirements
mandated by the EDP. Section 4.6 states, in part:
"The initial project leadership is appointed and approved in the
creation review. Subsequently, additional Project Leads must be
elected by the project's Committers and approved by the Project's
PMC and the EMO(ED)."
Further:
"In the unlikely event that a member of the Project leadership
becomes disruptive to the process or ceases to contribute for an
extended period, the member may be removed by the unanimous vote of
the remaining Project Leads (if there are at least two other Project
Leads), or unanimous vote of the Project's PMC."
HTH,
Wayne
On 10/06/2011 11:14 AM, Ed Merks wrote:
Mickael,
Yes, I like a fast approach too. I'm just not sure the EMO will
approve it. We'll need them to comment about what's a suitable
process in this somewhat dysfunctional situation. It it might
well be faster to start a thread "Proposed New GMF Tooling Leader"
and get all the active committers to +1 the proposal. Then it's
absolutely clear that the will of the committers is demonstrated
and recorded.
Regards,
Ed
On 06/10/2011 5:23 AM, Mickael Istria wrote:
Ed,
I think it will make things more complex/long. Changing project
lead of GMF Tooling is already something that should have been
done lots of monthes ago, and that has always been delayed for
several reasons.
Then I am in favor of a faster approach: Anthony makes Michael
Golubev project lead (with both Anthony's +1 and mine, the vote
is OK), and when it is done, we'll probably think about removing
Artem committer status on GMF Tooling.
Does it sound "legally" good enough?
On 05/10/2011 19:55, Ed Merks wrote:
Anthony,
Could the committers have an election? Perhaps anyone who
doesn't vote can be decommiterized...
On 05/10/2011 10:04 AM, Anthony Hunter wrote:
Hi Team,
I have not heard from Artem that he wants to lead GMF
Tooling anymore nor have I heard from anyone speaking on his
behalf.
Michael Golubev will be the new GMF Tooling project lead. I
will work with the modeling PMC and the EMO to make the
change.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
To: "GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 09/13/2011 09:35 AM
Subject: [gmf-dev] GMF-Tooling project lead
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Team,
" Anthony, could you please approve upgrading the version of
GMF-T to 3.0 for the Juno release? "
Well, I suppose the project lead would approve first. I am
thinking Artem is not around again. We are still waiting for
his approval for the release review. I am thinking it may be
in the best interest of the project for Artem to step down
as project lead and we make Michael Golubev the project
lead. To be fair, we need to give the community a bit of
time to reply back any concerns.
Michael, is it great that you now have a team of three of
GMF Tooling. I have no opinion either way if GMF Tooling is
3.0 in Juno. I would proceed with the project plan and allow
the community to comment.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Michael Golubev <golubev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 09/13/2011 08:06 AM
Subject: [gmf-dev]
GMF-Tooling in Juno -- can we plan for 3.0 (major)
release this year
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
While we are waiting for a release review for GMF-T 2.4, I
would invite everyone to put efforts into the planning for
next release.
I am glad to confirm that for this year we have got a
sponsorship from Avaloq Evolution AG, which is willing to
support team of 3 developers working specifically on
GMF-Tooling.
I am creating the draft proposal of the project plan now,
will commit it shortly and post the main proposed topics
here for discussion.
However, it is already clear for me that in order to deliver
the new features we need Juno release to be a major one,
thus 3.0 instead of 2.x.
The reason is, we will have to change models significantly,
and we will not be able to provide automatic backward
compatibility with the models created for 2.4.x
(we will of course follow the transition procedure from the
past of GMF-T and will develop 'Migrate Model' actions to
support migration of existing models).
Anthony, could you please approve upgrading the version of
GMF-T to 3.0 for the Juno release?
Also I am not sure how we can add into the Bugzilla the new
set of milestones (no matter whether it is 3.0 M2, M3... or
2.5 M2, M3...).
If someone know how to do that please advice me, it would
help with pushing the project plan proposal into Bugzilla.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael "Borlander" Golubev
Eclipse Committer (GMF, UML2Tools)
at Montages Think Tank, Prague, Czech Republic
Montages AG
Stampfenbachstr. 48, CH-8006 Zürich
tel: +41 44 260 75 57
mob: +420 602 483 463
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
|