On 02/15/2012 03:23 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
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.
To make 100% sure I got the adjustment from Bill correct, this is what you would
like to change it to:
[..] "a widget-based, web-and-social mashup user experience platform" [..]
Correct?
In that case I'd suggest to also drop the , resulting in:
[..] "a widget-based web-and-social mashup user experience platform" [..]
Still kind of a mouthful :)
I'm fine with either one, but think the latter is even a bit more cleaner.
Optionality kind of got lost all together now.
But for the project we'll probably never hit that as a problem because of the
pluggable and extendible nature of its architecture.
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
