The vote was open for more than 72 hours. I'm closing it. Here are results:
+1 (binding) Erik de Bruin Greg Reddin Justin Mclean Fréderic Thomas -1 (binding) Igor Costa (no explanation) Jeff Tapper (he stated "unless there are assurances that this will not be part of the main branch, but instead live in a separate repo", that was clearly stated in the main vote thread) 0 (binding) Jeffry Houser +1 (non-binding) Carlos Rovira Margo Powell Ben Dalton Jose Barragan Mark Kessler Joao Fernandes Nick Collins Cyrill Zadra Arnoud Bos -1 (non binding) Carlo Velasco (he doesn't see as a polite movement) As Alex stated, we can declare the vote null and start another, as well I emailed Chris Scott and he will email this list exposing his intention of donation. Thanks to all for participating Best, Carlos 2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > Hi, > > here's my +1 (I think I should state it although is clear since I was who > open the vote) > > > > 2013/6/1 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > >> Hi, >> >> seems like all has been said yet. I don't think we should stop the vote >> since as others commented two -1 votes was left in the cold with any >> explanation or commenting one that was explicitly exposed in the starting >> vote mail. >> >> Seems that the only one problem that people said is that Swiz could have >> more exposure than other frameworks, but IMHO this *possibility* is not as >> important for me than the main benefit: Be able to bring 2.0.0 beta branch >> (that right now is lost) to Apache to start discussing AOP here. If we >> don't do that, swiz AOP brach will be lost, since Chris Scott tell us in >> swiz miling list that he will donate it if there's interest. >> >> Regarding Om comments, I'll email Chris to ask him for an email here >> expressing his desire to donate Swiz source code and wiki. >> >> About releases, I think that taking into account that this will be a >> "utilities" project it's sure that his release will be separated from >> flex-sdk. Right now it's in 1.4.0. We already commited changes and we have >> 1.4.3 release. It seems it will be in that state for the time to get 2.0.0 >> beta AOP working, that right now requires to finish donation phase 1 to >> start talking about that. >> >> So people, we are right now at 72h of starting of the the vote thread, so >> what do we do? close votation and count? want to declare vote null and make >> another new vote thread? For me this vote thread can be close. So let us >> know following steps. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> 2013/5/31 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> >> >>> For me, it is a +1 for the sentiment. But an overall -1 for the lack of >>> specifics in the proposal. >>> >>> Here are the things that are bothering me: >>> >>> 1. We havent heard from the original developer that he/she wants to >>> donate >>> this code. Were they supposed to mail on this list? Are they going to >>> stay involved. We would need a champion in the community if there is >>> going >>> to be any hope of future Swiz releases. >>> 2. Do we have the time and energy to make separate releases for Swiz >>> going >>> forward? There isn't enough people to work on the current SDK, leave >>> alone >>> new stuff like Falcon and FlexJS. The same handful of committers are >>> juggling all these things today. There is absolutely no more bandwidth >>> to >>> take on more stuff. >>> 3. What is the message we are sending to the Flex community Swiz is >>> brought under Apache Flex. That we endorse it or not? What about all >>> the >>> other frameworks? >>> 4. What does the Swiz community think of this? Is there a mailing list >>> that has a similar discussion going on? Or is there no such community? >>> >>> Here are the alternatives I could think of: >>> a. Perhaps we could put Swiz into a contrib repo, thereby making no >>> explicit promises that we will be making any future releases. If there >>> is >>> enough interest, some Apache committers could make subsequent releases, >>> at >>> which point we could give it a separate Flex repo. >>> b. Or maybe ask those who are interested in contributing to Swiz to fork >>> it >>> to a GitHub repo. If they are able to make at least one release from >>> there, we can restart the proposal to bring it under Apache Flex. >>> >>> I will be happy to switch to a +1 (binding) if we discuss these points >>> and >>> resolve them. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Om >>> >>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM, dude <d...@atheist.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Same concerns here. Reviving Swiz would be a good thing to do, but if >>> > that happens under the Apache Flex flag it could be recognized as 'the >>> > best' or 'supported' IoC framework, even if explicitely stated >>> > otherwise. It might be better to keep the Status Quo (none of those >>> > frameworks in Apache Flex) - or get them all under one roof (not sure >>> if >>> > that is possible at all). >>> > >>> > AOP: It has also been pointed out in this thread that implementing AOP >>> > compile time weaving into Falcon might be a better approach (by Roland >>> > Zwaga). >>> > >>> > Am 31.05.2013 18:30, schrieb Alex Harui: >>> > > 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 >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carlos Rovira >> Director de Tecnología >> M: +34 607 22 60 05 >> F: +34 912 94 80 80 >> http://www.codeoscopic.com >> http://www.directwriter.es >> http://www.avant2.es >> > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > Director de Tecnología > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > F: +34 912 94 80 80 > http://www.codeoscopic.com > http://www.directwriter.es > http://www.avant2.es > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
