Costin Manolache wrote:
I agree this is unfair for your vote, and should be an independent issue. I'm reverting to my previous vote then (it was +1).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 )
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
