Anthony,
Given that more often than not, not everyone participates in votes,
I think we should assume that lack of -1s makes it unanimous.
I would also suggest that the committer ranks for the GMF tooling
project be reduced to those who are active, i.e., have committed
something in the last year (or last 6 months) and/or have voted
during that period.
Regards,
Ed
On 14/10/2011 8:04 PM, Anthony Hunter wrote:
Hi Wayne,
You were asking for unanimous
vote of the modeling PMC, we are missing votes from Jean Bezivin
and Frederic
Jouault. I think I am confused now since Cédric Brun voted but
he is not
listed on your modeling PMC memebers in your foundation portal.
Cheers...
Anthony
From:
Wayne Beaton
<emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Anthony
Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA,
Cc:
"GMF Project developer
discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
10/14/2011 12:11 PM
Subject:
Re: Proposed
New GMF Tooling Leader
Can somebody provide me with a summary of the
votes? I
believe that it's been a week.
Wayne
On 10/06/2011 04:57 PM, Anthony Hunter wrote:
OK,
I would like Michael Golubev to be the new GMF Tooling project
lead.
Michael Golubev and Mickael Istria need to 1+ this new thread to
confirm
their approval in this new thread again. I assume Artem
Tikhomirov will
also 1+ or continue to be silent and be removed from GMF Tooling
as an
inactive committer.
I already 1+ as GMP PMC and Modeling PMC member. I am not sure
if we need
a unanimous vote of the modeling PMC, but Ed as Modeling PMC
Lead can 1+
for that.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date: 10/06/2011 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [gmf-dev] GMF-Tooling project
lead
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Fast is good, and I'm all for making things as easy as possible.
However,
there are certain openness and transparency requirements
mandated by the
EDP. Section 4.6 states, in part:
"The initial project leadership is appointed and approved in the
creation
review. Subsequently, additional Project Leads must be elected
by the project's
Committers and approved by the Project's PMC and the EMO(ED)."
Further:
"In the unlikely event that a member of the Project leadership
becomes
disruptive to the process or ceases to contribute for an
extended period,
the member may be removed by the unanimous vote of the remaining
Project
Leads (if there are at least two other Project Leads), or
unanimous vote
of the Project's PMC."
HTH,
Wayne
On 10/06/2011 11:14 AM, Ed Merks wrote:
Mickael,
Yes, I like a fast approach too. I'm just not sure the EMO will
approve
it. We'll need them to comment about what's a suitable process
in
this somewhat dysfunctional situation. It it might well be
faster
to start a thread "Proposed New GMF Tooling Leader" and get all
the active committers to +1 the proposal. Then it's absolutely
clear
that the will of the committers is demonstrated and recorded.
Regards,
Ed
On 06/10/2011 5:23 AM, Mickael Istria wrote:
Ed,
I think it will make things more complex/long. Changing project
lead of
GMF Tooling is already something that should have been done lots
of monthes
ago, and that has always been delayed for several reasons.
Then I am in favor of a faster approach: Anthony makes Michael
Golubev
project lead (with both Anthony's +1 and mine, the vote is OK),
and when
it is done, we'll probably think about removing Artem committer
status
on GMF Tooling.
Does it sound "legally" good enough?
On 05/10/2011 19:55, Ed Merks wrote:
Anthony,
Could the committers have an election? Perhaps anyone who
doesn't
vote can be decommiterized...
On 05/10/2011 10:04 AM, Anthony Hunter wrote:
Hi Team,
I have not heard from Artem that he wants to lead GMF Tooling
anymore nor
have I heard from anyone speaking on his behalf.
Michael Golubev will be the new GMF Tooling project lead. I will
work with
the modeling PMC and the EMO to make the change.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
To: "GMF Project developer discussions."
<gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
,
Date: 09/13/2011 09:35 AM
Subject: [gmf-dev] GMF-Tooling project lead
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Team,
" Anthony, could you please approve upgrading the version of
GMF-T
to 3.0 for the Juno release? "
Well, I suppose the project lead would approve first. I am
thinking Artem
is not around again. We are still waiting for his approval for
the release
review. I am thinking it may be in the best interest of the
project for
Artem to step down as project lead and we make Michael Golubev
the project
lead. To be fair, we need to give the community a bit of time to
reply
back any concerns.
Michael, is it great that you now have a team of three of GMF
Tooling.
I have no opinion either way if GMF Tooling is 3.0 in Juno. I
would proceed
with the project plan and allow the community to comment.
Cheers...
Anthony
From: Michael Golubev <golubev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "GMF Project developer discussions."
<gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
,
Date: 09/13/2011 08:06 AM
Subject: [gmf-dev] GMF-Tooling in Juno -- can
we plan for 3.0 (major) release this year
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
While we are waiting for a release review for GMF-T 2.4, I would
invite
everyone to put efforts into the planning for next release.
I am glad to confirm that for this year we have got a
sponsorship from
Avaloq Evolution AG, which is willing to support team of 3
developers working
specifically on GMF-Tooling.
I am creating the draft proposal of the project plan now, will
commit it
shortly and post the main proposed topics here for discussion.
However, it is already clear for me that in order to deliver the
new features
we need Juno release to be a major one, thus 3.0 instead of 2.x.
The reason is, we will have to change models significantly, and
we will
not be able to provide automatic backward compatibility with the
models
created for 2.4.x
(we will of course follow the transition procedure from the past
of GMF-T
and will develop 'Migrate Model' actions to support migration of
existing
models).
Anthony, could you please approve upgrading the version of GMF-T
to 3.0
for the Juno release?
Also I am not sure how we can add into the Bugzilla the new set
of milestones
(no matter whether it is 3.0 M2, M3... or 2.5 M2, M3...).
If someone know how to do that please advice me, it would help
with pushing
the project plan proposal into Bugzilla.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael "Borlander" Golubev
Eclipse Committer (GMF, UML2Tools)
at Montages Think Tank, Prague, Czech Republic
Montages AG
Stampfenbachstr. 48, CH-8006 Zürich
tel: +41 44 260 75 57
mob: +420 602 483 463
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
--
Mickael Istria
R&D Engineer, Eclipse Plug-in RCP Developer
PetalsLink
- Open Source SOA
My
blog - My
Tweets
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
|
