On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@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. 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. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
