[1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [2] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [3] Fortress moves to D-Haven [4] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [99999] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate
(lower is more priority, 1 is better, 2 is worse.)
I don't know how to show associations in this format. Here's what I really want:
[1] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance, binary compatibility, and new enhancements/features. At the same time, have a defined migration path with binary compatibility to the unified Avalon container (must support features ECM, Phoenix, Fortress users have come to depend upon, even though they may not technically be the best solutions). I'll also add that I am volunteering to help with maintaining and enhancing Fortress as part of a team.
Shash
Berin Loritsch wrote:
I don't want to belabor the point, nor do I want this to drag on forever. Quite simply put, this opinion gathering tool is in the form of a vote, but it is not binding. It is only a way to show your preference. Please put a number of the order of preference that you have for what to do with Fortress. If any of the options is completely disagreeable put a -1 next to it.
[] Fortress stays in Avalon with maintenance [] Fortress moves to incubator for TLP [] Fortress moves to D-Haven [] Fortress moves to XXX (enter your choice here) [] Fortress is nuked and users forced to migrate
This is merely an opinion poll, so please don't write real long comments. If you have a new option, write it in. The results of the opinion poll will feed a proposal I have so that we can move along quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
