Based on Robert's suggestion below: This VOTE will close on Monday, 17th April around 5:00 PM EST.
Other comments inline ... On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 17:45 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > <snip> > > i've had a think and i'm +1 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [X] +1 Move [scxml] to Commons Proper > > [ ] +0 I am fine with this move > > [ ] -0 I am not too keen, because ... > > [ ] -1 I am against this move, because ... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > there seems to be plenty of user traffic: hopefully some of this will be > translated into developer activity. it's probably the most actively > developed sandbox component and looks reasonable polished. it's used > elsewhere at apache. > > the scope may (at first glance) be a little problematic. it's an > implementation of an specification. not all implementations of that > specification would be suitable for the commons. however, i think the > SCXML codebase is sufficiently brick-ish to qualify. it's a small engine > with minimal dependencies (several of the other xml components here are > similar). it's a library which isn't a framework. good enough for me. > > perhaps this could be made a little clearer in the proposal: i'd prefer > a tighter definition perhaps talking about a lightweight engine. <snip/> Thanks for the feedback, I mostly agree with what you've said above. > > > This VOTE will remain open for a minimum of 72 hours. > > seems very short: best to allow at least a week. i also prefer noting a > time. > <snap/> Makes sense, the time this vote will be closed has been noted at the top of this email (its a couple of days over a week -- though am away, and offline, this weekend). -Rahul > - robert > <snip/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
