| Re: [mmt-dev] MMT/QVTo Project Leadership |
Hi
In the absence of any communication on the mmt-dev list from the QVTo committers that resolves the inactive project leadership role, we need to find some way past this impasse.
As MMT co-lead, I therefore invite QVTo committers to express an opinion on whether they feel that it would be appropriate for Sergey Boyko, as the sole active committer, to take over the role of project leader.
Active participation in the project is an important responsibility of committers, so a failure to express an opinion may influence the way in which the EMO and/or PMC views ongoing committership.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 31/05/2012 06:28, Ed Willink wrote:Hi Ed
Yes. There has been some contact. Two days ago I responded to a how-to-proceed query with a recommendation that Radek email mmt-dev to stand down and propose a new leader. I'm a bit disconcerted that nothing has yet happened. I was expecting to get to +2,0,-0 with 1 not voting quickly and decisively. But so far it has only been 36 hours. Give it another 36, then we can discuss how to get an election started so that non-voters have failed to participate. I'm not an MMT/QVTo committer so I cannot start an election.
The decommitterize option may also be needed to sort out the MMT/ATL co-leadership election that stands at +3,0,-0 with 3 not voting after six days. Reminder already sent. Eight days to wait.
Regards
Ed
On 31/05/2012 05:14, Ed Merks wrote:Ed,
Have you or committers on the project attempted to contact Radomil? I've taken the position in the past (for EMF core for example) that anyone not voting in a committer election would be decommiterized, and have followed up on that premise with exactly that action. It's not as drastic or severe as it sounds, or is it final. It's easy for the committers to add someone back in should they choose to become active again. We simply can't have important processes held up because of inactivity. Yes it's nice to be a committer on a project, but if even just voting is not possible, the level of involvement simply doesn't merit committer status.
Regards,
Ed
On 25/05/2012 5:39 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:Here's what I think we should do.
The PMC should attempt to contact Radomil and ask his intentions regarding the project.
If he is unresponsive, or responds that he wants to give up the position, the PMC can declare the project dysfunctional and request that the EMO replace Sergey with you for project lead. If he responds otherwise, I have some other thoughts.
The EDP says that the decision to replace a project lead requires the unanimous consent of the PMC. We generally regard this to mean "no -1s" on a public vote in the PMC mailing list.
Once you are project lead, you retire the two inactive committers and initiate a committer election for yourself. Sergey will have to vote +1 in this election or it will fail. Once he does vote +1, the election will wrap up immediately and you'll be provisioned. If Sergey doesn't respond, I have some other thoughts.
Does this plan sound evil enough, or do I need to include sharks with frickin' lasers?
Wayne
On 05/23/2012 03:03 PM, Ed Willink wrote:Hi Wayne
Booting QVTo has bad ripples because GMF and more downstream projects depend on it.
At about M3.5 there was a major email exchange when it appeared that QVTo would not be in Juno.
As a result, Nicolas Rouquette (JPL/Nasa) personally funded Sergey Boyko the sole remaining fractionally active committer to get it into Juno. M4 happened but little else. Minimal email response. One Bugzilla comment a few days ago.
So, on the one hand, Nicolas is being short changed in not getting what he funded/agreed to fund.
On the other, I want QVTo to stay on the train and will do the relevant builds/IP logs etc. Very little to do I suspect.
To expedite this, I need to be a QVTo committer.
About six weeks ago Sergey agreed that it would be a good idea if he moved up to project lead, and I became a committer. I am qualified to be a committer since about six QVTo plugins were developed by me.
With Sergey being so inactive, perhaps I should be bumped direct to project lead.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 23/05/2012 19:53, Wayne Beaton wrote:The project metadata needs to be updated, and project activity seems pretty quiet.
There is no evidence of builds of QVT Operational since the Indigo release.
My assessment is that QVT operational should be booted from the simultaneous release. But that's up to the Planning Council due to lack of engagement in the process.
I'll send a note.
Wayne
On 05/23/2012 06:49 AM, Ed Willink wrote:Hi
For MMT projects, I hope that ATL will be efficient, but I fear that QVTo may need 'encouragement'. Can you please let me know the current state of play?
Regards
Ed Willink
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2176 / Virus Database: 2425/5017 - Release Date: 05/23/12
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5033 - Release Date: 05/30/12
_______________________________________________ modeling-pmc mailing list modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5033 - Release Date: 05/30/12
_______________________________________________
mmt-dev mailing list
mmt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mmt-dev