Re: [pmf-dev] Basic rules of PMF and eclipse talks

[Olivier Moïses <olivier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yves,

I don't want to answer on behalf of PMC members, but we had already BOF and meetings were decision has been taken in last EclipseCon and Eclipse Summit.
I just propose to follow what we decided during ESE meeting (as democratic open source projects do).

Why to change now ?

Moreover, EclipseCon will be in more than 3 months and there is material to publish into the CVS.

I guess that Ed and Ken could have a excellent understanding of what we need to decide by reading our discussions in PMF-dev mailing list.

As I said in a previous post, my main concern is about PMF reputation and the difficulties we could face on while trying to extend initial team.

I re-ask you the question : do you want to increase PMF team ? If yes, governance issues have to be discuss and fixed asap.

Olivier

2009/12/15 <yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> Yves, in the case of your way to read the proposal is the one that
> everyone
> understand :
>
> Does it mean that the initial list was exhaustive ?
> Does it means that new solution/technologies will be de facto excluded ?
> Does it means that we need to create a new eclipse project for the same
> purpose : UI modeling ?

Olivier,

It is said clearly that the project can be extended. But to extend the
scope and the content, we need to passe by PMC and community.

I propose we organize a Bof in eclipsecon with PMC members and all others.
You can ask them directly the questions. And make this kind of decision
together with PMC. Is it reasonable?

Best regards
Yves YANG

> Olivier
>
> 2009/12/15 <yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> > In general, projects are restricted from including things outside
>> their
>> > scope. But I don't think the things Olivier are bringing up are
>> > obviously outside the scope. Therefore, Yves, you need to explain
>> better
>> > why some things are considered OK to include in the project, and other
>> > things are not.
>> >
>> > So in the case of PMF, why is model-to-text transformations a natural
>> > part of the project, and model-to-model transformations not? In both
>> > cases, the point is ending up with artifacts (code, models, supporting
>> > files) that can be executed or interpreted by a runtime.
>> >
>>
>> This template "JET" is in the proposal as a demonstrator. The proposal
>> was
>> passed by project review. It is accepted by PMC and by the Community.
>> Any
>> change must be proved in the same way.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Yves YANG
>> > Hallvard
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > pmf-dev mailing list
>> > pmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pmf-dev
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pmf-dev mailing list
>> pmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pmf-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> pmf-dev mailing list
> pmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pmf-dev
>


_______________________________________________
pmf-dev mailing list
pmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pmf-dev