geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: Release most 1.4 specs?
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:44:25 GMT

On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> We seem to have a process problem from what I can tell.  I seem to  
> recall a few votes and no activity on this subject (perhaps someone  
> can help to correct my flawed view of the world).
> Can the vote initiators summarize the previous votes and proposed  
> actions?  I'm not sure why this is still being discussed but I  
> would feel a whole lot better if we had a vote consensus.  What was  
> the last vote proposed and what was the action and majority outcome?

IMO, Jason's following note pretty well recorded the point we'd  
reached last month:

On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Folks... this vote has been lingering for way to long... some of the
> in-flight debate/discussion kinda threw us off track.
> I believe that we should implement the solution we have described here
> for now and if needed continue discussion and debate about how to
> handle this better... BUT, I think we must do something now and I
> think that this is good enough.
> Here is a tally of the votes cast so far:
> <snip>
> +1: jdillon, dblevins, dain, bsnyder, bdudney, gnodet, pmcmahan,
> jbohn, rmcguire, hogstrom
> +0: jacek
> And after some debate:
> +1: kevan, alan
> </snip>
> While I, djencks, kevan and a few others have expressed some desire
> for one version for all specs, and many other have expressed
> objection... I do believe that we need to do something to get specs
> into a publishable state NOW.
> So, unless anyone screams loudly, I am going to implement the changes
> described below as an intermediate solution.  Once this is done (and
> once people comes back to life) we can publish a new set of SNAPSHOT
> artifacts and remove the need for the specs build in bootstrap...
> which is one step closer to not needing bootstrap.
> This may not be the final solution... but its one step closer... and
> since we have not moved at all on this for quite some time I think any
> movement is better than none at all.


View raw message