Remy Maucherat wrote: >> >> Votes: >> [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help >> [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. > > I'll have to vote -1 until the other vote completes, and then, I'll > either be: > - +1 if Jon's proposal doesn't pass > - -1 if Jon proposal is accepted, unless Jasper is removed from the list
I think this is at least unfair. I started the discussion on "minimal" tomcat before Jon's vote. I was trying to get a consensus and opinions to shape the proposal. Jon jumped in with the vote. I don't think "who proposes the vote first wins" is the best solution, I don't think we are even talking about the same thing ( Jon wants a JSR154-only, I'm proposing a minimal tomcat ). I don't see why a vote on Jon's proposal would affect my proposal ( or any future vote ). > As I said, I'd like to limit to 2 maximum the amount of Tomcat binary > distributions (I think two is too much, actually, but still is > acceptable). Then make a proposal that "maximum 2 tomcat binary distribution should be allowed". But even in this case - I think I am allowed to propose that one of the distributions ( the small one ) includes jasper runtime and is not called "jsr154 only". Even if Jon's vote is passing. If your -1 vote on "minimal tomcat" ( that includes jasper ) is based on concerns that we'll have too many distributions - I agree it's a valid reason, and I know you don't need a reason to vote -1. I have no problem with a vote on "minimal tomcat" to not include jasper compiler ( or even jasper runtime ) - if this gets a majority of votes than it can happen. The reverse is a bit more difficult - i.e. we can't include jasper in a "JSR154 only" ( as Jon proposed ) Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
