|
|
|
|
|
| Re: MDT EODM Termination Review [message #378878 is a reply to message #378871] |
Fri, 17 October 2008 00:06   |
 Kenn Hussey
Messages: 1620
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
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@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gd88dn$vnn$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Thanks for the quick reply Kenn.
>
>> The EODM newsgroup archive is available at
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.e odm/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@eclipse.org and
>> eclipse.org-committers@eclipse.org 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: MDT EODM Termination Review [message #594023 is a reply to message #378871] |
Fri, 17 October 2008 00:06 |
Kenn Hussey
Messages: 1620
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
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@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gd88dn$vnn$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Thanks for the quick reply Kenn.
>
>> The EODM newsgroup archive is available at
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.e odm/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@eclipse.org and
>> eclipse.org-committers@eclipse.org 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
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03929 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
