Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [gmf-dev] Proposed New GMF Tooling Leader

Hello,

Can somebody provide me with a summary of the votes? I believe that it's been a week.

 As of now, we had the following votes: 

GMP-T committers:
Anthony Hunter: +1
Mickael Istria: +1
Michael Golubev: +1

Modeling PMC:
Ed Merks: +1 (*)
Anthony Hunter: +1
Miles Parker: +1
 
(*) -- From Ed Merks:
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),

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

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Wayne Beaton <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can somebody provide me with a summary of the votes? I believe that it's been a week.


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





Back to the top