commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Promote Compress to Commons Proper
Date Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:19:41 GMT
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +0, no cycles for [compress] here either ATM.
>>
>> I make the same point to you I made to Henri. If people had voted this
>> way on the SCXML promotion then it would never have got out of the
>> sandbox (and that would have been a shame IMO).
>>
> <snip/>
>
> Yes, that would have been a shame IMO as well ;-)
>
> What you say above may be correct -- its hard to play out what-if
> scenarios. But its relatively easier to recap what actually happened.
> Since [scxml] is mentioned, lets use it as a data point:
>
> <history>
> The first vote for promotion failed (in fact, it got a -1 from mvdb
> because the vote wasn't getting any +1s ;-).
>
> Few months later, in the second vote for promotion, bayard expressed
> an opinion similar to what he said here (he posted a +0 initially):
>
>  http://markmail.org/message/rzrvfn6q2x472yni
>
> In that sense, I'd say bayard is being consistent.

I disagree in the SCXML vote he says "I'd like to hear a few
committers who are committing to following scxml" compared to "I don't
plan to be involved...so +0" in this vote.

> That was followed immediately by some expression of interest and
> commitment from dion:
>
>  http://markmail.org/message/zewkyss4sqonz2fd
>
> and interest from craigmcc as well (with an initial +0 for a similar reason):
>
>  http://markmail.org/message/quidcdy33geabzml
>
> These two opinions (along with my own) precipitated some votes in
> favor resulting in a successful vote.
> </history>
>
> I believe we've said in order for a component to be promoted we are
> looking for some expression of "commitment" (in quotes for obvious
> reasons) from folks to mitigate the risk of thrown over the wall and
> quickly orphaned components. I also believe we've had folks voting
> differently (while some may +1, others tend to +0). I think thats
> fine.

Yes I agree this is a valid concern for any promotion vote - but thats
not what Henri said and I think my point is still valid that if all
PMC members only voted +1 on promotions of components they plan to
contribute to then the sandbox may as well be shut down. Fortunatly
thats not the case so far in this vote.

Niall

> -Rahul

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


Mime
View raw message