Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site


With regard to component creation, in an ideal world, you'd have a clear
proposal written quickly.  This would be useful even as the contents of the
home page for that component, so the effort to write it isn't wasted.  It
would list the committers.  Again, you'd want all that good information for
the contributors pages and for the committer forms.   You'd want to send
out an announcement to the members at large for the cool new thing you'd be
doing.  I.e., all the information would be reusable for many purposes.
We'd post the proposal or link to it in the newsgroup for comment, allowing
a week to pass, then we'd call for a vote on the mailing list, again,
allowing a week to pass (or until all the committers have voted, which
never seems to happen but could reduce the delay to a day).  Then I'd need
to do the new committer paperwork, request the module creation, and we'd
need IPZilla for anything new being contributed (and can use parallel IP to
speed that up).  Potentially all such things could be done in just three or
four weeks (and I know the delay is often longer because it takes me a lot
longer to do some things than it ought to).  Unfortunately I can't see how
proper organization of focused components and proper adherence to Eclipse
processes can be achieved without all these steps.

We greatly value the things you, Markus, and others folks who have worked
on oAW contribute to the community and we also value your long term
participation.  So hopefully you guys won't allow these bumps in the road
to discourage you too much.  I understand fully that it's very

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

             "Bernd Kolb"                                              
             de>                                                        To
             Sent by:                  "'Jean Bezivin'"                
             modeling-pmc-boun         <Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,  
             ces@xxxxxxxxxxx           "'PMC members mailing list'"    
             10/20/2007 03:48          "'Markus Voelter'"              
             AM                        <voelter@xxxxxxx>               
                                       RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT
             Please respond to         web site                        
                PMC members                                            
               mailing list                                            


As discussed several times before, here again my answers:

      From: jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
      Jean Bezivin
      Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:46 AM
      To: PMC members mailing list
      Cc: Markus Voelter; Bernd Kolb
      Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site

      Bernd, Markus & oAW folks,

      Could you provide the following information:

      When the oAW migration process will be finished,
      where will be located the various oAW contributions
      in terms of project and components?

oAW is willing to donate the following to the Eclipse Community. This
process is partly completed:
Workflow -> EMFT/MWE
Xpand/Xtend/Recipe/?  -> M2T/Xpand,Shared,Common
Xtext -> TMF to be created, see our proposal!

      Who are the committers associated to each contribution
Committers are
                Markus Voelter,
Sven Efftinge,
Peter Friese,
Karsten Thoms,
 Arno Haase,
Clemens Kadura,
Bernd Kolb.
Maybe this list is not complete

      When will this migration be finished?
MWE: done
Xpand & co: within the next few weeks, sorry I cannot be more precise on
Xtext: Mid-term, the project first has to be created

      I am particularly interested by the impact of these on GMT.

      One of the problems we are having in GMT is to provide a clear
      focus and short description for each of the component of the project.
      This is not presently the case  and we need to move rapidly in this
oAW has been never different to what we provide today. Not since we joined
Regarding the short description: We provide exactly this on
And BTW: I think we are not the only component in GMT with this kind of
focus, are we???

      The information I would like to have, related to GMT is:

      1. Do you intend, at the end of the migration process,
      to keep a specific component within GMT?

      2. What will be its name?

      3. What will be its precise focus?
      (by focus I mean some sentences describing precisely the goal of the

      When defining the focus, bear in mind that GMT is defined as the
      "research incubator for
      the Eclipse Modeling Project".

What you are telling me is that there is no room for oAW (and I am not
talking about the brand, but about the content) in GMT, right?
If that is the case, I think it would be really sad. If that is your
decision we have to live with that. Just as a remark: Everything we now
provide to the Eclipse community started as a playground in oAW and evolved
from there. There are several examples of stuff we created and later
deleted it again. Most of the things have been driven by one person at the
beginning. What we need is a kind of sandbox where we can experiment with
different things and evolve them from there. To us, oAW (or whatever you?d
like to call it) is such a sandbox. However the focus is still limited:
Basically we have 2 topics:
Integration ? E.g. how to integrate a model validation language with GMF or
how to run a MWE from a specific modeling tool
      Improvements/Research ? At the moment e.g. we are having a look at
      MD-PLE. This results in improvements in MWE, Xpand and Xtend. And
      maybe someday in the future we can provide a new project for EMP with
      tools on top.

The alternative would be to create a component for each new topic we?d like
to investigate. This means writing a proposal, voting for it, creating a
cvs module for it, adding committers to it? This takes an awful lot of time
as you know. Meanwhile we cannot do anything useful. >From our point of
view, this is not the way to go, at least for us. It is ok whenever we have
something mature enough, but in the early stages, it is not feasible.
If the EMP/GMT is not interested in such a component we have to find
another way.



      Thanks and Best regards,


      On 10/19/07, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

      That is exactly what we are doing at the moment. As described in the
      previous mail, we are splitting oAW over several projects in EMP.
      Once we
      are finished oAW will be a distribution outside eclipse. As you maybe
      noticed documentation and downloads already moved to Eclipse a while
      And as our CQs finally make good progress we are able to move our
      code into
      the different EMP projects. So we are definitely willing and we do
      our best
      to achieve this ASAP. As I said, MWE has no pointers to oAW anymore
      (not in
      the code, not on the Wiki, not in the documentation...) and the same
      will be
      true for Xpand in the next few weeks.
      The main reason for the pointer to the website has been the forum
      where we
      try to help the community. For the same reasons the EMFT newsgroup is
      in Technology we haven't moved it to Eclipse yet. (It would be hard
      people to find old items). Nevertheless, we are answering the
      questions in
      the EMP-newsgroups as well! But for sure, we can remove the link. I
      personally do not care.

      Best regards,


      Mit freundlichen Grüßen
      Bernd Kolb

      (Beratung & Coaching)
      Bernd Kolb
      Franz-Marc Str. 35
      89520 Heidenheim

      Mobil: 0163/7321605

      -----Original Message-----
      From: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
      [mailto: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
      Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:43 PM
      To: PMC members mailing list
      Cc: 'Markus Voelter'; modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
      'ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx, PMC members mailing list'
      Subject: RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site


      By the same token, EMF started at but you won't
      signs of that.   The E in EMF even stood for e-tools.  But when we
      moved it
      to Eclipse, we stripped all that is IBM from it, except for the
      I think that's very important.  Even if oAW is not a big corporate
      it at least gives the appearance of commercial interests being
      After all, folks do consulting under this brand.  And of course we
      value your contributions.  After all, GMF is making good use of
      It's the individuals making the contributions that we'd like to
      their associated entities should play a secondary role at best.  I'd
      to see Eclipse provide some type of "list of credits under help"
      contributors, committers, and their sponsoring affiliations could be
      advertised.  I think that would be the appropriate place for
      bands to appear.   I think the oAW brand is only appropriate as an
      distro, like MyEclipse...

      Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
      mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
      905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

                  "Bernd Kolb"
                  Sent by:                  "'Richard Gronback'"
                  modeling-pmc-boun         <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
                  ces@xxxxxxxxxxx           "'Ian Skerrett'"
                                            "'ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx ,
                  10/19/2007 02:27          PMC members mailing list'"
                  PM                        <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
                                            "'Markus Voelter'"
                  Please respond to
                     PMC members
                    mailing list
                  <modeling-pmc@ecl         RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on
            >             web site

      Ian, Rich, Ed, Jean

      openArchitectureWare has been a project which has started independent
      Eclipse and has been integrated into GMT at some point. Hence it does
      its own brand and a quite large community including a webpage with a
      on it. Just to clarify, oAW is driven by individuals, not by a
      of the developers are not paid for what they do to oAW, at least not
      directly. It is one of the purposes of GMT to provide a way of
      promising new or existing projects into the Eclipse universe.

      However, we are aware that for openArchitectureWare this is a
      state: at the moment we are in the process of splitting oAW into
      pieces that will end up in various Eclipse Modeling project, dropping
      openArchitectureWare name in the process.

      For example, the process has been finished for the Modeling Workflow
      (MWE) which can now be found in EMFT and is being removed from
      openArchitectureWare. If you have a look at the code and the
      you?ll find no references to openArchitectureWare anymore. The same
      will be
      true for our Xpand contribution to the model-to-text component; it is

      currently in the process of being migrated to M2T.

      After we finished this process, openArchitectureWare will be much
      important. Our goal is to keep the "brand" oAW as a kind of
      of well-cooperating Eclipse modeling components, combined with a set
      experimental modeling related tools. We hope to finish this process
      the next few weeks.

      I'd just want to make one remark w/r/t the branding of components. I
      the modeling project is different from the rest of the Eclipse
      Here we have e.g. a project called Model-to-model. It contains
      languages (components), basically doing the same. It is ok to have
      different languages with the same functionality. However, it is
      show the user when he should/could use which component. Thus, in EMP
      components are much more independent from each other than in all
      Eclipse projects. I think it is good here to have a little branding
      a limited range, I agree) which gives these components an identity.
      helps the users to distinguish them

      Best regards,


      Mit freundlichen Grüßen
      Bernd Kolb

      (Beratung & Coaching)
      Bernd Kolb
      Franz-Marc Str. 35
      89520 Heidenheim

      Mobil: 0163/7321605

      From: Richard Gronback [mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx]
      Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:40 PM
      To: Ian Skerrett; ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx, PMC members mailing list;
      Kolb; Markus Voelter
      Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site

      Thanks for the ATL observation, Ian. I was under the impression that
      ?identity crisis? components were all within GMT. ATL has graduated
      GMT recently, as have several components of oAW, but I see they still
      reference to the ATLAS Group on their page. This should be removed,
      with other references such as the Acknowledgement section at the
      bottom of
      this page:
      course, the logos are not what you mean, right? We have lots of logos
      use within Modeling.

      Until such time there is a policy for advertising external entities
      (commercial, academic, or otherwise) on the website, I
      that all references should be removed. As Ed mentioned, you won?t
      links to IBM or Borland on the EMF or GMF sites.

      Regarding oAW, we have had discussions with them and decided the most

      painless approach was to require they strip their oAW identity when
      graduating to other modeling projects, also as Ed mentioned. The
      Xpand and
      Workflow components are undergoing a namespace refactoring as they
      and we?ll make sure there are no oAW on the M2T and EMFT websites.
      certainly try to speed up this process.

      Another timely topic is the recent announcement of the oAW 4.2
      release ( and I don?t recall a release
      taking place for this component (or ever for GMT), and I see they are
      providing links to download from on
      download page. Hopefully, we can correct this ASAP.


      On 10/19/07 1:12 PM, "Ian Skerrett" < ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
      What I would suggest is that the components of GMT should not have a
      logo/graphic and have a descriptive name not a nickname. I think this

      go a long way to improving the situation. Btw, this goes for all the
      modeling sub-projects, for instance

      modeling-pmc mailing list

      Jean Bézivin - ATLAS Group (INRIA & LINA) - University of Nantes - 2,
      rue de la Houssinière
      44322 Nantes cedex 3 - France
      tel. +33 2 51 12 58 13 - fax. +33 2 51 12 58 12 - cell.+33 6 14 32 22
      - e.mail: Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Skype: jbezivin
      modeling-pmc mailing list

Back to the top