On 4/10/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/11/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/8/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I propose, for the second time, that we move [scxml] to Commons > > > Proper. As a quick reminder, the first vote [1] called three months > > > ago was -1'ed for lack of developer support. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > [ ] +1 Move [scxml] to Commons Proper > > > [ ] +0 I am fine with this move > > > [ ] -0 I am not too keen, because ... > > > [ ] -1 I am against this move, because ... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Lots of commons-user activity, lots of code, contributions - the only > > downside is that all the commits are from rahul. Same problem with the > > RDC taglib to be fair. > > > > I'm +0. I'd love to see scxml promoted, but I'd like to hear a few > > committers who are committing to following scxml due to interest. If I > > > I'm committed and interested and following scxml. And not only due to the > Jexl/el overlap. It's an interesting space atm.
Likewise ... the idea of a nice state machine that can be reused in different contexts (including Shale, which I do pay attention to :-) is quite appealing. The only reason I can't in good conscience vote +1 is *my* lack of time to participate ... and that is *not* Rahul's fault :-). hear that people are keeping an eye on it, then I'm +1. > > > > Hen Craig
