avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [ANTI-VOTE] Lifecycle Extension Tags
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:04:48 GMT

Leo Sutic wrote:

>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org] 
>>Calling for a vote is about the least productive thing you 
>>could do to get consensus.
>I've done that many times in order to force *a* decision 
>either way. It is a great way to say "OK, we've fired off
>our best arguments, let's put the issue to the team."

Forcing a decision when all of the cards are on the table and the 
choices are valid is ok.  This is forcing a decision without a solution 
and introducing a fracture into whatever we do from here.  We have lived 
with the ECM Phoenix divide for long enough - do we really have to do 
for divsion again and again?  Forcing a vote at this time is a blunder 
of major proportion.  The questions are important - the issue need to 
resolved.  I've already explain that we need to either complete things 
properly or abstract ourselves. 

>>I will consider it totally invalid and I certainly will not 
>>feel bound by any outcome.
>So does that mean we can ignore your votes, vetoes and so
>on as we see fit from now on?

Feel free to do whatever you want.

There is simply insufficient understanding of this implications
of the options that Berin put forward to call a vote at this time. 
I cannot support or endorce a process that that I know is faulted
in motivation and technical argument.

>Stephen, the votes aren't something you can choose to ignore
>when and as you see fit. If a vote is completely invalid, then
>nobody will vote, or everyone will vote -1. Right now there
>are people voting +1. That in itself makes it valid.

Yes - there are people voting +1.

Do they understand what they are voting for?  My guess is that they will 
assume the very simplistic line from Berin that this is about a 
namespace.  They will not take into account the ramifications.  They 
probably will not appreciate that this is a divisive point in terms of 
the avalon component model. They will probably not appreciate that it 
introduces a separation at the core of Avalon and from that separation 
there will eternally be those that do and those that don't.



Stephen J. McConnell

Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

View raw message