Thanks Carlos. When the 72 hours pass, please use a [VOTE][RESULT] tag to officially close the vote.
@Erik. My vote didn't have to really count since it came late, but without a [VOTE][RESULT] tag on a vote summary email it wasn't clear it was officially closed. Thanks again, -Alex On 6/2/13 2:44 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: >I'm fine with a second reound of votes. So we can close here this thread >and I open a new one just now. > > >2013/6/2 Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> > >> Ok, if that's what it takes to avoid further confusion, I'll second >> (or third) a new vote, but all the points you raise have been >> discussed and the resulting consensus conforms with the points you >> want to add/amend in the new vote. >> >> Note also that Parsley also seems to be on the point of being donated, >> so all the 'endorsment' worries seem premature and unnecessary. >> >> A point of procedure: can you add a 'binding' vote AFTER the result >> has been called? >> >> EdB >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Ix Multimedia Software >> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 >> 3521 VB Utrecht >> >> T. 06-51952295 >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl >> > > > >-- >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
