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