[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [modeling-pmc] Proposed New GMF Tooling Leader
|
+1
On 10/7/11, Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> We need unanimous consent of the modeling PMC to change the GMF Tooling
> lead from Artem Tikhomirov to Michael Golubev.
>
> 1+ from me :-)
>
> Cheers...
> Anthony
>
> ----- Forwarded by Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM on 10/07/2011 10:09 AM -----
>
> From: Wayne Beaton <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA,
> Cc: "GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 10/06/2011 09:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed New GMF Tooling Leader
>
>
>
> 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
--
Sent from my mobile device
