[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [pmf-dev] Basic rules of PMF and eclipse talks

Great! Let us develop a good plugin.

Thanks
yves
> Yves,
>
> Questions we are several to ask need answers.
>
> If it is out of your responsability, as you said, then let us moving
> forward
> and contribute.
>
> We will determine later an update of the scope by observing what has been
> brought.
>
> Olivier
>
> 2009/12/15 <yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Olivier,
>>
>> Unfortunately, the questions you ask, I cannot anwser. Again, it is out
>> my
>> responsability. The decision at EclipseCon, I have stated these issues
>> clearly. You said "we" have decided in ESE. For me, we have discussed
>> the
>> technical issues and possible integrations. I don't remember I agree
>> with
>> the bundle of all products in PMF.
>>
>> I repeat. These stuffs are out of my responsablity.
>>
>> Please look at the current situation, the project is still at the early
>> stage. Nothing gets really proved. Why do we just seat down and work on
>> the project and make it successful? And in the mean time, we will try to
>> deal these isses with PMC and community when it is possible.
>>
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Yves YANG
>> > 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
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>