No. It's a project lead's call to remove an inactive committer.
wayne
On 10/07/2011 11:51 AM, Ed Merks wrote:
Wayne,
Does decomitterizing an inactive committer take unanimous consent?
Regards,
Ed
On 06/10/2011 6:07 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
FWIW, we can only assume a 0 from someone who is silent. I only
need a total of 3 +1s, so this should work out.
GMP does not have a separate PMC. You fall under the Modeling
PMC. If an existing inactive lead must be removed, the EDP
states that we need unanimous consent of the PMC.
Wayne
On 10/06/2011 04:57 PM, Anthony Hunter wrote:
OK,
I would like Michael Golubev to be the new GMF Tooling project
lead.
Michael Golubev and Mickael Istria need to 1+ this new thread
to confirm their approval in this new thread again. I assume
Artem Tikhomirov will also 1+ or continue to be silent and be
removed from GMF Tooling as an inactive committer.
I already 1+ as GMP PMC and Modeling PMC member. I am not sure
if we need a unanimous vote of the modeling PMC, but Ed as
Modeling PMC Lead can 1+ for that.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date: 10/06/2011 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [gmf-dev] GMF-Tooling project lead
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
--
Mickael Istria
R&D Engineer, Eclipse Plug-in RCP Developer
PetalsLink - Open Source SOA
My blog
- My Tweets
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
_______________________________________________
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
|