avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] MutableConfiguration interface
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:16:18 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> I know. The reason for "my veto" in this case is because I think it is 
> pre-mature, and need a bit more debate. Introduction of an interface, on the 
> basis "it doesn't hurt" is not good enough - It DO hurt the long-term, we 
> can't remove it.
> I also don't have the tools of expression in the votes. +0, -0 is still an 
> "abstain" vote. In my book it is more like, I don't care.
> Ex;  +1, +1, 0, 0, 0
> Is this in favour or is disapproved? How do I vote, "I have no opinion."
> But, this is a slightly different debate, and I think -1 should count as a 
> vote opposing and majority is reached by positive number if adding those 
> votes. 
> Indirectly, I would like to have an amendment to our rules, more in line with 
> parlimentary voting, Yes, No, Abstain (and possibly Veto for certain types, 
> but not all)

Unless there is a good reason not to do this, simply make all votes of a
technical nature a simple majority vote.  If there needs to be unanimity,
then we should explicitly say so.

On the other side of the coin, changes to Framework are not trivial (i.e.
Component vs. Service, LogEnabled vs. Loggable).

We have the extension package to assist with testing these types of things out
so that we can get something that "feels" right without adding a bunch of
requirements to existing containers.


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin

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

View raw message