| Re: [orbit-dev] David Williams vote summary |
|
We've now waited an extra week without any comment to your email.
Of course you are correct in observing that the vote moved very quickly and that I likely should have left it sit for the full week. The "pressing issue" is that I do not and have not had the time to devote to Orbit and there are things that need to get done. Since I started the Orbit project some years ago I've also added several other project responsibilities to my list. Lately I have not been paying as much attention to Orbit as I should have (though the related CQs sure keep me busy). Frankly it has only been running thanks to the quality hard work of people like David. With the flood of new things and people for Galileo and the development cycle closing I felt quite some project and personal pressure to "do it or get out". As for the activity level, that has been a topic of much discussion. My statistical statements were not to imply that inactive participants do not get a vote but rather it wold only be reasonable to expect responses from folks who have been active/participating. We had an overwhelming and rapid response and IMHO the chances of a negative vote appearing are/were vanishingly small so rather than waiting for the inevitable I pressed forward to keep things rolling. Not sure where to go from here. I certainly declare mea culpa and throw myself on the mercy of the Orbit community. Does anyone feel strongly that I should be undoing the EMO process? Jeff Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
is there anything that forces us to have the decision made so quickly? The call for vote was on Friday 8pm CET. I find it great that such a large number of Orbit committers have given their +1 vote over the weekend until 10am CET, but putting it into the records that there was no 0 or -1 vote just over the weekend seems a bit odd. In my opinion, it would seem more natural to have a week pass before declaring the result, unless there are pressing issues. I'm not at all against David, and I extremely appreciate his expertise, effort and thoughtfulness. I further assume that there are good reasons for Jeff to resign, though I have also much appreciated his "final word" and crisp decision on things. Has anybody else even been asked whether he'd want to assume leadership? Furthermore, in terms of Orbit, I suspect that the activity counting is not correct. I'm listed as "inactive" which is understandable in terms of commits, since the libs under my custody haven't changed; but I have been active on the mailing list, have immediately voted whenever possible, updated the Wiki and been active on Bugzilla. http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project_summary.php?projectid=tools.orbi t Sorry, but this process doesn't seem as open and transparent as it should be. Again, if there are pressing needs to expedite this, I'm OK with David. If not, I'm in favor of doing this properly. Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff McAffer Sent: Montag, 02. Februar 2009 09:50 To: Orbit Developer discussion Subject: [orbit-dev] David Williams vote summary Since project lead voting is manual, here is the tally so far. of 12 active or participating Orbit committers 9 have voted and all are +1. There are no -1s or 0s. Congratulations David. I will initiate the handover process with the EMO. Jeff _______________________________________________ orbit-dev mailing list orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev orbit-dev mailing list orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev _______________________________________________ orbit-dev mailing list orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev |
