Or even a scope of what the project encompasses.
Ron
On 02/05/2015 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Thanks Jacques!
One of the biggest challenges ahead will be trying to build consensus
- since we can't even agree on how a vote should be worded.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 5/1/2015 7:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
At least Adrian brought this on the table and it was worth beginning to
discuss :)
We know now that nobody would do it w/o a PoC
Jacques
Le 01/05/2015 08:10, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote
shouldn’t be considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal
(as a PoC in a branch) was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in
fact from this message it seems that is explicitly NOT what the vote
was supposed to be about based on the comment that doing a PoC in a
branch requires no vote.
I had the same thought: for example, I didn't understand why David's
and my vote have been classified as +1 and -1 respectively when I have
clearly mentioned: "+1 to this proposal by David".
Jacopo
Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I
don’t see how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most
people replied with multiple votes with different clarifications!
This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply
have been cancelled or reframed.
-David
On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many
replies included votes for other things, so this tally represents my
best effort at counting votes for the original subject.
PMC Members (Binding)
---------------------
+0 | 2 (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
+1 | 1 (David Jones)
-1 | 3 (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
Others (non-Binding)
--------------------
+0 | 1 (Adrian Crum)
-1 | 2 (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to
explore the subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I
will consider this vote closed.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing
some (or
all) of OFBiz with Moqui
(http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
Entity Engine
Service Engine
Security
Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful,
then
more of OFBiz can be converted later.
I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve
compatibility
problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it
here in
case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
