Okay. This makes me feel a lot better.|
This project still needs to be whipped into shape.
Regular development needs to be moved to the project. That means
that you need to elect a few co-committers to share the load. Start
this process immediately.
As I stated in the CQ, you must replace the "everything"
contribution with a delta that contains only what is different from
what is currently in SVN.
All ongoing development from this point forward must occur in the
project's eclipse.org source code repository.
The project needs to operate in a transparent and open manner. I
recommend that you request a -dev list for the project from the
webmaster and engage in project-specific communication there.
The project website needs to make very clear that anything currently
called a "release" is a "milestone". The project website needs to
conform to the incubation branding rules. Note that the rules apply
to the content of downloads as well. This needs to be done
immediately. All downloads/p2 repositories must be available from
eclipse.org. Downloads and repositories from alternative sources
must be marked as such 
Subject to the approval of the PMC, I am prepared to allow the
project to continue with the established version numbering scheme.
The project must engage in a release review within three months.
When you decide the date, create a record in the project metadata to
reflect that decision and announce it on the project dev list. Make
sure that the project metadata is otherwise up-to-date.
On 08/02/2012 04:02 PM, varro@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dear Wayne and All
All previous "releases" of
VIATRA were IP clean - at least this
aspect was verified by the Eclipse IP
team. For all contributors of the VIATRA project,
we have faxed a corresponding Eclipse
Consent signed by the employers to the Eclipse Foundation.
My estimate of 15+ developers included
those people who contributed to
experimental features which have not
yet reached a certain level of maturity to
get submitted as a contribution to Eclipse.
As for the four developers mentioned
in CQ 6703, their share of contribution only relates to
the delta, that is, the novel contributions
since the last "release". There are 12 contributors
to the total code base - as you list
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
"'PMC members mailing list'" <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
is not operating as an Eclipse open source project
Eclipse projects must follow the Eclipse Development Process.
Operating in a "single committer mode" is no excuse. The processes
exist for a reason, primarily one of protecting the developers,
and adopters from IP exposures.
Eclipse projects are responsible for maintaining a log of all
How are the contributions of 15+ developers accounted for? All of
commits are attributed to you, and there doesn't seem to be 15
worth of contributions captured in Bugzilla. Based on the three
CQs, I have the following list of contributors:
Daniel Varro (GMT committer)
Are there other contributors? Were all of these contributions
in conformance with the IP Due Diligence process? 
The contribution attached to CQ 6703 represents, AFAIK, the entire
base of VIATRA2. It lists four developers. If it's a revision of
contributions that includes all of the code, shouldn't it list all
who contributed to the previous work? Should it list 15+
This is a potentially huge IP exposure. Who are these
did they contribute? Do they have the rights to contribute? Do
consent to the IP being distributed under the EPL?
This needs to be sorted out immediately.
Are you in a position to bring the project into conformance with
On 08/02/2012 03:02 PM, varro@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dear Wayne and All,
Let me give some further information about the background of this
The VIATRA2 project has been an incubation phase as part of the
subproject since its start in 2005/2006.
It started as a purely academic initiative, and slowly evolved
Since GMT was an umbrella project for many different initiatives
to modeling and code generation,
a single committer account was granted for me - as VIATRA project
With 6-8 other projects,
GMT already had quite a high number of committers in the very
After the birth of the Modeling project, several subprojects of
ATL, oAW) gradually
moved to Modeling. VIATRA stayed in GMT up to now - with a single
the fact that 15+ people contributed it during the last couple of
Due to this "single committer mode", it was impossible for us
follow the Eclipse processes as it caused unrealistic overhead.
has somehow become a "forgotten" project in the last couple of
years, so no one was really there to
help us avoid policy violations.
(In fact, our ad hoc release numbers date back to a time when the
was not yet in effect - and several other former GMT projects were
Of course, I would be grateful for any kind of assistance or
we can get
to sort out non-conformance issues. But it would be also great to
committer accounts first for the regular VIATRA contributors to
From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gmt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx ,
"'PMC members mailing list'"
Date: 2012.08.02 20:03
Subject: VIATRA2 is not operating as an Eclipse
open source project
Greetings GMT project and Modeling PMC.
Daniel, if you have not already joined the GMT dev mailing list,
I am concerned that the VIATRA2 project is not operating as an
open source project
CQ 6703 was submitted today. That CQ is for a code contribution.
to be a significant contribution of code. It is the first
in more than two years to the project. In comments on that CQ, the
lead indicates that the contribution is "the newest combined
of the VIATRA2 model transformation framework" and that "In each
iteration, we compile the contributions from the developers and
code to Eclipse.org."
This runs counter the open source rules of engagement set out in
Development Process . Specifically, the project is not
an open and transparent manner leaving little opportunity for
join the project. The project has been established for some time,
be operating fully at eclipse.org.
There are several developers listed in the contribution. Based on
of contribution, I believe that each of these developers should
committers and do all future work directly in the eclipse.org code
The project website  indicates that there have been numerous
of the project, including statements like "The VIATRA2 Release 3.1
has been approved by Eclipse.org!". AFAICT, the project has not
a single release review as required by the Eclipse Development
The project must plan to undergo a formal release as soon as
Further, the 3.2 release indicates a third-party update site only
downloads page . It is okay to provide alternative download
they must be *alternatives* to eclipse.org; the downloads for the
must be obtainable from eclipse.org. A third party site cannot be
The project is--according to my records--in incubation. Incubation
must be provided on the download page and in downloads. I have
project as "incubation-non-conforming"; the project cannot benefit
from parallel IP until the incubation branding issues is resolved.
I believe that the project would benefit greatly from Architecture
mentorship (I'm not sure why mentors weren't assigned in the first
Can the modeling project suggest somebody who might be appropriate
The Eclipse Foundation
The Eclipse Foundation
The Eclipse Foundation