Hi
Ed
In my opinion, it's in the best interest
of the OCL project and hence the community to appoint as soon as possible an
individual who is motivated and skilled to act as a long term leader, and is
in a sustainable position because of the relatively secure financial
backing of a commercial entity. The best interests of the community are
the basis for the principles of the Eclipse development process and in my
opinion supersede them when they are in conflict. In the end, I expect
to go forward with a list that includes a long term leader; interim leaders
won't cut it so please don't propose that. I can certainly wait beyond
this week for the discussions to ramp down, but I must have a new list in
place well before RC1 to ensure the viability of the release
train.
There have been so many notes, I'm not sure if anyone has
suggested an other leader yet. I'm also not sure if any of the people on
the short list would object to Freddy being the leader. Having Obeo, as a
strategic developer commercially committed to Eclipse success, backing this
effort definitely would give me significant confidence. I'd like to
suggest we try to be a little more pragmatic and a little less pedantic while
remaining fair to all the interested parties. After all deadbeats can be
easily decommiterized, as I've learned from personal experience with that
process this week, so I'd be inclined to include more people rather than less.
I
agree completely; although the Eclipse IP logs may suggest me as the project
lead
and
others have graciously acceded, I just do not
qualify:
I
have no experience of the detailed releng processes.
I
am frightened by the list of Galileo requirements for
M6.
I
have no financial backing; my employment by Thales is
coincidental.
I
am not confident that I can commit enough time to both contribute to and
lead
MDT-OCL, as well as QVT Declarative and GMT/UMLX and
other oddments.
Augmenting the qualifying contributors by a good leader
seems to be essential.
Regards
Ed
Willink
