My count is now three binding -1's. Igor Costa, Jeff Tapper, and Om. I guess I'll add a fourth. Jeff qualified his vote, but it still reads as -1 because it isn't right to assume he accepts your interpretation of the proposal. Jeff should change his vote if he is convinced.
The amount of discussion and confusion by others that we are not picking Swiz as the favorite and that Parsley and other app frameworks are welcome, makes me make another plea to re-do this vote. Reading some of these posts make it clear to me that folks have different ideas of what is going to happen in the future. I'm still unclear whether Swiz AOP code is going to be moved into the framework or not. I thought we were going to warehouse Swiz, but instead, it appears that Carlos wants to make a set of significant improvements to Swiz, which is fine, but might be what makes people think we're endorsing or playing favorites. Yes, you have the numbers to forge ahead, but we are told to consider the number of -1's. I would recommend a proposal that states clearly that 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go into a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the SDK. The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. People need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or favoritism. 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same process. It would make me much happier to have a vote thread with just +1's or -1's without qualifications. -Alex On 6/1/13 10:19 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >I am sorry, but I voted a -1 binding as well and my concerns have not been >addressed. > >If we are going to go ahead, can we at least bring it into a contrib >folder >and make at least one release out of it before promoting it to a main >repo? > >Thanks, >Om >On Jun 1, 2013 10:07 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> >wrote: > >> Ok Erik, >> >> I see it ok as well. As you said there's only one -1 binding vote (Igor >> Costa) and one -1 non binding vote (Carlos Velasco), and it was already >> explained the motivations behind the donation and the intention to >>maintain >> swiz out of main flex-sdk cycle and not promote it as the preferred >>mvc-ioc >> microarquitecture. >> >> So for me it's ok, if it's ok for the rest of people here. >> >> Hope Chris could send us that email soon regarding it's intention of >>donate >> the source code and wiki >> >> Thanks to you Erik as well for clearing things here. >> >> >> Carlos >> >> >> >> 2013/6/1 Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> >> >> > I think this is a valid vote and there is no need to declare it >> > invalid. There is only one definite, binding -1 (Igor) and he declined >> > to explain his motivation, something that is customary when casting a >> > negative vote. >> > >> > Once Chris Scott 'officially' donates Swiz - there are some hoops he >> > has to jump through, but we'll get to those when he contacts us- we >> > can create a new repo for it: either a general 'flex-contrib/swiz' or >> > a specific one, like 'flex-swiz', we need to discuss that a bit more, >> > I think. >> > >> > Thank you Carlos for managing the vote and keeping track of this >> donation. >> > >> > EdB >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >>
