I was thinking that by being more explicit and proposing a "contrib" repo that is intended as a warehouse for low-activity items it would help resolve some of these misunderstandings. FlexUnit and the installer in utilities are still more active, IMO.
I'm just concerned about wrapping up the vote with this many -1s without finding a way to get those who voted against it into some sort of dialog. On 5/31/13 9:53 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >The -1 people (3, of whom 2 have a binding vote) have declined to >respond to repeated requests for clarification (by both Justin and >me). Their previous comments seem to indicate they don't want Swiz to >become part of the SDK. The VOTE proposal clearly states: > >"This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional a >NOT part of the main sdk." > >So that excluded Swiz from becoming part of the SDK releases. So: 2 of >the three -1 votes seem to be the result of a misunderstanding of the >proposal. > >The name of the repo is secondary and doesn't warrant a new VOTE. > >To the future of the framework and a potential AOP implementation >etc.: as Swiz won't be a part of SDK, it will live it's own life. >There will be (IMHO) no requirement for SDK developers to maintain >backwards compatibility with it. If someone wants to work on Swiz, >they are free to do that. I don't see how a contribution from some >committers would translate into an implicit endorsement - or if it >does, how that would be a bad thing... If it is, we should stop work >on FlexJS for now and get going on VanillaSDK in order to prevent >people from thinking we favor one framework over another :-) > >EdB > > >On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> I'd like to vote in favor, but I'm not liking the quantity of -1's we're >> seeing. >> Can we cancel this vote and draft a more detailed proposal, maybe after >> some discussing with those voting -1? >> >> I think the new proposal should be explicit about the name of the repo. >> I think the new proposal should state that Swiz would have its own >> releases and not be part of an SDK release. >> >> One thing I'm not quite understanding is how the future would look if a >> committer did try to add AOP into the SDK. Would that conflict with the >> implementations in Swiz or other frameworks? Or is the expectation that >> some set of committers will update Swiz to use that implementation of >>AOP? >> Committers are free to do whatever they want, but if Swiz gets more >>love >> than the other frameworks it could appear to be the "endorsed" >>framework, >> which is what I think we are trying to avoid. >> >> -Alex >> >> >> On 5/29/13 6:16 PM, "Jeff Tapper" <j...@spoon.as> wrote: >> >>>-1 Binding, unless there are assurances that this will not be part of >>>the >>>main branch, but instead live in a separate repo. >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com] >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:12 PM >>>To: dev@flex.apache.org >>>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Swiz Framework Donation to Apache Flex >>> >>>+1 (binding) >>> >>> >>>On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Carlos Rovira >>><carlosrov...@apache.org>wrote: >>> >>>> After proposal thread >>>> (http://markmail.org/message/jtedmmx5djqen52l),comes >>>> the vote thread. >>>> >>>> This thread is to decide if we finally adopt Swiz Framework under >>>> Apache Flex, since there is multiple opinions in the Apache Flex >>>community. >>>> >>>> points to take into account: >>>> >>>> * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK >>>> with a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and >>>> well designed. >>>> * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's optional >>>> a NOT part of the main sdk. >>>> * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable version, under Apache License 2.0, >>>> has its community and right now there's no maintenance or upgrade >>>> since people behind the project is no longer working with Flex >>>>technology. >>>> * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and wiki content. >>>> * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott (creator of >>>> Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP >>>> support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex >>>> since it brings something very new to client web technologies and that >>>> will require evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time >>>weaving). >>>> >>>> Points that some people argument to not accept the donation: >>>> * There is other frameworks like Swiz out there in the same situation >>>> and this donation could make Swiz the preferred/recommended IOC >>>> framework of use. >>>> >>>> Points to take into account: >>>> * Erik de bruin stated that maybe the problem is "what to do with it" >>>> under Apache Flex umbrella. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please make your vote. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Carlos Rovira >>>> >>> >> > > > >-- >Ix Multimedia Software > >Jan Luykenstraat 27 >3521 VB Utrecht > >T. 06-51952295 >I. www.ixsoftware.nl
