On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
