On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> wrote: >> > In August 2008, it was discussed that XAP had been inactive for at least > 4 >> > months. In November 2008, we again saw issues with XAP and discussed >> > suspension. Having reached, now, February 2009, and still nothing with > XAP, >> > I am raising this as a vote. > >> -1 >> >> Suspension implies wrongdoing and fault, and that this disciplinary >> process is temporary >> >> IMO XAP should be archived into an Attic > > Huh? So when I suspend my laptop, it did something wrong and needs to be > disciplined? That hasn't been true since I stopped running MS-Windows > Vista! > > The project is dormant, sleeping, idle, hibernating, and can be mothballed, > put away in the attic, put on ice. If and when there is further community > interest, it can be woken, thawed, taken out of the attic, recommissioned, > reactivated, unboxed. > > Is your -1 really solely on the word?
the word is a just a symptom if you had asked for a vote on the measures themselves, i would have been +1 but i don't believe that creating policy on the fly is a good idea. there is no reason to rush so IMO it should have been used as a use case for developing and documenting policy. disciplinary process is important. something as simple as a choice of phrase can change the way a particular set of actions is perceived by the outside world. if writing policy, a reasonable description of the proposed act would have been 'Suspending Operations' as part of - if we had some documentation describing and policy controlling - a move to archive status. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
