[news.eclipse.modeling.mdt] Re: MDT EODM Termination Review

["Kenn Hussey" <Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

I agree that the information should have been posted with the notice (my 
bad); it's also surprisingly difficult to find the newgroup archive, as I 
just discovered. I'll work to see if I can make this easier; indeed, the EMO 
has done such few terminations that best practices have yet to emerge in 
this area.

Unfortunately, a wider broadcast of the intention to terminate EODM would 
likely have not made a difference, as the main problem was that there was no 
development community to sustain it (despite the apparent interest from the 
user community in using it)... I have high hopes that the replacement 
component will better serve both communities (in addition to the adopter 
community).

Kenn

"Tom Morris" <tfmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:gd88dn$vnn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for the quick reply Kenn.
>
>> The EODM newsgroup archive is available at 
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.eodm/maillist.html.
>
> That would be useful information to include include in the notice. 
> Additionally, although a closing announcement was posted to the newsgroup, 
> the group was almost immediately deleted making it unlikely that it would 
> be seen by anyone who wasn't reading religiously.
>
>> Announcement for all reviews (creation, release, termination, etc.) are 
>> sent out by the EMO a week before the proposed review date to the 
>> eclipse.org-membership-at-large@xxxxxxxxxxx and 
>> eclipse.org-committers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing lists.
>
> OK, so there's no way for interested parties to find out unless they're 
> Eclipse members.  Might I suggest that sending a notice to the newsgroup 
> might be appropriate?
>
> We actually did look into becoming Associate Members, but since as an open 
> source organization we depend on the kindness of pro bono lawyers and the 
> main benefit seems to be co-marketing, we decided not to burn their 
> valuable time reviewing all the documents associated with membership. 
> Perhaps we need to revisit that decision if there's significant 
> communication that's restricted to members lists.
>
> Tom