commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodney Waldhoff <>
Subject Re: [collections][lang] Functors vote result
Date Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:01:14 GMT
I'm not sure these two proposals should necessarily be considered mutually
exclusive.  It might be silly to approve both, but the answer to "which
vote wins" could legitimately be "both".

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> Two votes were taken on functors:
> Vote #1:
> Make [collections] depend on [lang], Functors located in [lang]
> +1  Stephen, Henri, Scott
> no other votes
> This vote would be treated as a 'product change lazy consensus' [1]. It
> passes this.

my to -1 on that proposal, at least until the concerns expressed there are
addressed in one way or another.

> Vote #2:
> Create new [functor] component (presumably for [collections] to depend on,
> although not actually stated)
> +1  Rodney, Morgan
> +0  Craig, Martin
> -1  Costin, Stephen

> If this vote is to create a new sandbox component, then by the commons
> charter anyone can do this without a vote.

As stated, that proposal is to create a new commons component named
functor, with the described scope.

> If the vote is for collections to
> depend on a new component in commons proper,

As stated, "Other components and projects that apply the functor idiom are
encouraged but not required to use and extend the Functor implementation."

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message