I'm excited to what Spoon can add to the mix and the idea of a plan on your end sounds very appealing to me and gives some guidance to the community.
I might be jumping the gun on this and not hoping this happens but how strongly does Spoon feel about its roadmap and would you for example look at forking if certain bits don't get accepted in. Would hate to see us end up in a situation like that, or the opposite where Spoon as likely one of the biggest contributors de facto dictate where the product is going and the discussion on that happens within the Spoon project. Not to be negative - think it is good to bring up and discuss exactly how Spoon will function within this setup. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Michael Schmalle <m...@teotigraphix.com>wrote: > Quoting Jonathan Campos <jonbcam...@gmail.com>: > > That is an exact question that I asked at the Flex Summit specifically for >> the group. >> >> Roy Fielding had a great analogy/answer. >> The main idea is that this is that we are throwing a party, not running a >> business with free labor. So people need to be energized about what they >> are doing, they aren't there to be given tasks. >> >> As such there is no roadmap. You may come up with a great idea and start >> working on it, then when other people see what you are doing they may >> join. >> Over time your idea snowballs and gets added in, but this doesn't mean >> that >> there is a formal roadmap for people to sit at and program away against. >> >> However this is where Spoon comes in. We do have plans and roadmaps of >> features we want to add. Some take time and require people. If you are >> interested in our roadmap (our party) you and anyone else is free to join. >> >> Make sense? >> >> J >> > > This actually does make sense for features. > > So can I ask this, am I to then just look at the bug base, say hey that > looks like something I can fix, fix it then commit it? > > Don't jump on this to quick, I am saying there needs to be a unit test? I > remember Alex saying that Apache is usually commit & review but that they > were trying for a review and commit in the beginning. Has anybody else > heard this? > > Does there have to be votes on say a new component that would be added to > the SDK? I'm really just trying to understand the algorithm of > develop/test/fix/commit for an initial committer. > > Thanks, > Mike > > > > > >
