On 2/14/12 9:09 PM, "Ate Douma" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 02/15/2012 01:21 AM, Bill Donaldson wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Ate Douma<[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 02/14/2012 03:31 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >>>> >>>> I have created a draft of the graduation board resolution [1] and >>>>would >>>> like to get feedback from the community regarding the proposal; >>>> specifically, the wording of the description& scope. Ate made a >>>>great >>>> point that we need to ensure it is narrow enough that we can execute >>>>against >>>> it, but broad enough to include future use cases. The rest of the >>>>template >>>> was filled out with the result of PPMC discussions held on >>>>rave-private@ >>>> >>> Thanks for drafting up the charter Matt. >>> >>> The crucial part of the charter we should agree upon is indeed the >>> description of the *scope* of the project. >>> >>> The proposed text currently is: >>> >>> [..] "a widget-based, web-and-social mashup and user experience >>>platform" >>> [..] >>> >>> While definitely a good description for the scope, I would still like >>>to >>> propose a very minor but possible important change, like this: >>> >>> "a widgets, web-and-social mashup and user experience platform" >> >> I believe widget-based would be more inclusive than 'widget' Widget >> *might* imply W3C widget. > >Well, there are many flavors of 'widgets' :) >We purposely choose and use the term widgets for Rave in the more generic >meaning, including W3C Widgets, OpenSocial Gadgets, etc. > >I personally don't think there is much difference between widget-based >and >widget in *that* respect. IMO the "-based" postfix reflects on Rave, not >on the >term widget itself. > >> >>> >>> The reason for this slight change is that saying "a widget-based, >>>[...]" >>> might be interpreted as if Rave at least assumes/requires widgets to be >>> used. >>> >> As a heavy user of Rave, we count on it supporting Widgets. Removing >> Widget from the scope would narrow the scope of the project and be a >> limiter of our future use of the platform. >> >Oh, then I didn't make myself clear on my intend. Which is definitely >*not* >removing Widgets from the scope. For us (Hippo) Widgets also are crucial >to be >supported. But not every Rave based project might *need* (require) them. >That is the distinction I was trying to make. > >> It might be better to be more specific that on the intent of widgets >> are optional. Sorry I don't have better wording...it is a suggestion >> if someone was so inclined. >My proposal was just an attempt to make this optionality clearer, but I >clearly >didn't succeed :) > >> >>> I *think* (but this really is about semantics and grammar, in a >>>non-native >>> language for me), my proposed change makes it more optional to use >>>widgets, >>> as just one possible feature of the platform. >>> >>> IMO 'a web-and-social mashup and user experience platform' (thus >>>without >>> using/requiring widgets) also very much fits the bill for Rave. >>> >> >> perhaps a change of the clause 'web-and-social mashup and user >> experience platform' >> >> to 'web-and-social mashup user experience platform' The 'and' never >> did much for me but I'm an engineer not an English major. > >Right, and neither am I. English isn't even my native language :) Sadly, your grasp of English grammar exceeds my own native education at times : ) > >However, for me the 'and' does make sense, as indication that Rave >supports >being used as: >- widgets platform and/or >- web-and-social mashup platform and/or >- user experience platform > >Typically these three dimensions come together in practice, and most >certainly >two of the three. But not always need all three be combined to be 'in >scope' for >future features of Apache Rave IMO. >And that is what this charter is about: the scope for *future* features >and the >'functional domain' of Apache Rave. > >The scope of the charter also should be taken seriously: it can and >should be >ground to *not* accept a certain future feature for Rave if it doesn't >fit in >the scope. > >To be sure: I'm also fine with using the initial text from Matt! >My proposal was just an attempt to provide a minor improvement for it, >not to >cause further confusion or lengthly discussion. It isn't that much of a >difference anyway. > >So unless others actually think my proposal is an improvement, or come up >with a >very clear and better alternative, I'm +1 on Matt's proposal. I too feel like the and is clumsy and don't think Bill's change does anything to the scope other than to simplify the statement. I think if we wanted to explicitly call out that Rave can be used for any of the three cases you identified, we should word the scope so that it differentiates each use case. However, I don't think splitting the use cases accurately captures that Rave is all of these in one, which is why I propose to adopt Bill's change. > >Regards, Ate > >> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Regards, Ate >>> >>>> Once we have an agreed upon resolution, we can call a community VOTE >>>>for >>>> Graduation and proceed with the process. >>>> >>>> Let's get ready to graduate! >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> [1] : >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12514364/graduation_re >>>>solution.txt >>>> >>>> >>> >
