Re: [modeling-pmc] Wish to take over MXF, Re: MXF Creation Review result

["Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG" <kutter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > > I don't imagine what you're planning fits exactly the scope that's 
> > > been spelled out. 
> > Actually, we like quite the original scope of MXF.
> I'll want to understand what concretely you have that fits this 
> general scope verses what's specifically focused on OCL.
I will do so.

> > At the moment, we have good productive discussions with the OCL 
> > project, how to support the stable ECore targeted implementation 
> > without bringing in danger the new more OMG compliant Pivot 
> > implementation. Bringing any new aspects into this project, would be 
> > too much. OCL has lots of challenges ahead.
> This divide between the pivot-model-based and the older 
> more-specifically-targeted implementation concerns me.
We will find a way. I just agreed to meet with Ed Willink on the 24th of 
March for a longer session, and I spent a day with Axel Uhl on the 28th 
of Dec, and will maybe spend some more time with him in February.
> > > The new Xcore work is also about model execution (for Ecore), to 
> > > some extent, but I'd rather keep that as part of the EMF project, 
> > > not move it to a cross cutting project.
> > As described in the original MXF proposal, MXF is about supporting 
> > different ways to make ECore models executable. It is perfectly ok, 
> > that a specific way such as XCore is part of the EMF itself, but 
> > there should be a place for the other ways of making ECore executable.
> Those places can be where the execution languages themselves are defined.
I agree. Or in a project using the execution language intensively.
> > > I'm not sure how the other PMC members feel about this.  In general 
> > > we have a large number of dead project that need cleaning up.  
> > > Personally, in the future, I'd rather see more life injected into 
> > > projects that are currently alive.
> > I agree, this is a good way too. Exactly for that reason rather than 
> > sending the mail our right now to the PMC, I will discuss with a few 
> > people from the Architectural Council what makes sense.
> They're likely to have zero insight into any of these issues, other 
> than other members who are also PMC members.  In the end, the Modeling 
> PMC has to agree to host the project.
I am just following up with the hint of Wayne Beaton to have someone of 
the Architectural Council as mentor.

As well, I may have the opportunity to create some insight for someone 
there, who is interested.

Best Regards, Philipp