I hate to be a party pooper and, in fact, I can say that I've been too busy with SDO issues to look at enough of the details to feel qualified to vote, but the most recent note I saw from Sebastien, voicing issues with Jeremy and Jim's design (that is what's called Chianti now - right?), I would have to say that some of them, at least the ones that I understood enough of the details of to form an opinion, sounded like important concerns. So, I guess I'm just wondering how those issues are going to be addressed once this happens?
If my lack of paying attention to all the discussion on this topic means my comment is out of touch or just plain nonsense, please chalk it up to me being overworked and pretend I never sent it :-) Thanks, Frank. "Kenneth Tam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/14/2006 03:10:40 PM: > +1 > > On 7/14/06, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello fellow committers, > > Last week I was on vacation and felt for sure that when I got back > > I'd see a unified direction for the Java Tuscany SCA code base. I've > > held back discussing any of this for a while because I didn't want > > to add any more fuel to the fire. I now feel I have to speak up: to > > be honest about this, I was really disheartened that it has came to > > pass that we as a community so soon moved to having to fall back on > > "The Rules for Revolutionaries". While this seems to be acceptable > > path for a Apache project, I don't feel that makes right for > > Tuscany. I think there is a fundamental difference in the stages of > > projects that followed that route and the stage that Tuscany > > currently is at and survived as a project.. Many of these projects > > were fairly mature, they had a much larger pool of core developers > > to draw on both sides, they had a much larger user base, and for the > > most part they were based on mature specifications. I agree that in > > some stages in the life time of a project a revolution is > > desperately needed to bring about innovation. I don't think this is > > the case for Tuscany, I honestly don't think Tuscany is at the > > stage where it can quite honestly survive such a split and still > > gain traction in gaining commiters and users. > > > > I'd really like to request that we as a community once again focus > > not as much on the technology which both branches have merit, but > > consider the Tuscany project as a whole will be better served if we > > make a decision on which will be the future today. Thus I'm > > requesting as has been asked before if we can't take a vote on one > > and once again move forward together as one. > > > > Specifcly: > > > > I would like to propose that we make the chanti tree the main trunk > > and turn the current trunk into a maintainance branch. The chianti > > code would be moved to tuscany/java and would be the main > > development tree moving forward; the existing trunk would be moved > > to branches/M1. Please vote if you agree with this proposal - as a > > policy vote, at least 3 +1s and more +1's than -1's would be needed > > to do this > > > > This is my +1 for this. > > > > Thanks > > Rick > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
