How does the existing project team feel about this?
The easiest way to proceed is for the existing project team to
accept your XOCL contribution, move it into the IP process, and
initiate committer elections for the new developers (citing the
contribution as the required demonstration of merit). Once on board,
you can nominate and elect a new project lead. That lead can retire
the inactive committers. The existing project lead can retire by
sending me a note.
That's the ideal.
If the project team is unresponsive, the Modeling PMC can--after
transparent discussion and unanimous consent--decide to replace the
project lead and committers.
Make sense?
Wayne
On 01/05/2012 09:03 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Dear
Wayne.
I have not seen anything since April now. I assume thus that the
project will be either closed, or should be taken over from
another party.
In the meantime we increased activities on our own model execution
framework, and we definitively would like to take over the
project. I cc'd their mail list to see any reaction from the
original people.
The scope of the project needs not be changed, as they positioned
it as an open project, allowing to welcome all MXF, not only the
original proposed one. Thus we will be open for the original
contributions, and others coming from the TopcaseD area (see
discussion on mail list).
In additon to the original scope, we will much more be focused on
project collaboration with other Modeling projects, mainly those
implementing OMG standards, such as ECore, OCL, QVTO, Acceleo, and
DI from TopcaseD. Here the points we will bring to the scene:
- ECore will be the basis for all metamodels, such that other
modeling projects for persistence (such as CDO) and different ways
to express syntax (visual, textual, tree/table) can be added
easily
- Reuse of _expression_ languages of other projects (OCL, imperative
extension of OCL from QVTO, and newer ones like XBase)
We especially intend to use the project to make sure that topics
such as dynamic/static binding of operation calls,
overriding/overloading, multiple inheritance are solved the same
way as in ECore/Java. (we filed Bugzillas for this topic in the
OCL project, which where already partially fixed)
From our side we will contribute one MXF framework called XOCL,
which is simply a set of standardized OCL annotations for ECore
models. This is, as Ed Merks mentions simply a usage of existing
stuff, not much new.
Michael Golubev will bring the knowledge to the scene, how to do
the builds and will help me to follow all the Eclipse processes.
He is the component lead for GMF Tooling and UML2 Tools.
Thus: there needs nothing to be added to the original plan.
Please let us know how to proceed.
Regards,
Philipp
On 26.04.2011 14:54, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Hi Philipp./
The project appears to be dead on arrival :-)
I will check with the PMC and project founders to see what their
plans
are. Hopefully you'll see some activity from the project.
Wayne
On 04/26/2011 05:16 AM, Philipp W. Kutter wrote:
Dear Anne.
Has there been any news since 7.4.2009?
I have neither seen the Eclipse page, nor the initial code
contribution.
Any input welcome. I will as well try to contact the founders
of the
project as soon as I find time.
Regards,
Philipp
Am 07.04.2009 18:47, schrieb Anne Jacko:
Hello all,
Since there has *not* been a request from a member of the
Eclipse
community to hold this review on a conference call, there
will be no
Review Call tomorrow (April 8, 2009).
The EMO has declared this review to be successful based on
the review
docuware and on community feedback. Congratulations to the
MXF team on
their successful review.
Please contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx with any questions. Thanks.
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
|