Igor, again, why are you against the proposal? We clearly need to understand why you are voting -1 so we can address the issue.
On 3 June 2013 13:12, Igor Costa <igorco...@gmail.com> wrote: > -1 (Binding) > > ---------------------------- > Igor Costa > www.igorcosta.com > www.igorcosta.org > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carlos Velasco < > carlos.velasco.bla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > 2013/6/3 Kessler CTR Mark J <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> > > > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > > > I like the new verbiage better. > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rov...@gmail.com] On > Behalf > > > Of Carlos Rovira > > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 5:58 AM > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Subject: [VOTE] Oprtional MVC/IOC Frameworks Donation: Swiz Framework > > > Donation > > > > > > This vote comes from an original vote thread declared as null (see > > original > > > thread for info about motivations): > > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/o6zjmorfh4lxuygo > > > > > > The new vote thread is considering the donation of the optional MVC/IOC > > > Swiz Framework. > > > > > > Points taken from the original vote thread: > > > > > > * Swiz is a great addition to Apache Flex since it complements de SDK > > with > > > a microarquitecture for application MVC, IOC, DI very simple and well > > > designed. * This will be a project like flexunit or utilities. So it's > > > optional a NOT part of the main sdk. * Swiz is already in 1.4.0 stable > > > version, under Apache License 2.0, has its community and right now > > there's > > > no maintenance or upgrade since people behind the project is no longer > > > working with Flex technology. * Donation will be 1.4.0 source code and > > wiki > > > content. * Future plans: if donation is successful, Chris Scott > (creator > > of > > > Swiz) will want to donate experimental 2.0.0 branch that brings AOP > > > support, a feature that could bring a great benefit to Apache Flex > since > > it > > > brings something very new to client web technologies and that will > > require > > > evolution at compiler level (introducing compile time weaving). > > > > > > > > > Here's the new points from Alex Harui to make clear what it implies: > > > > > > 1) Swiz goes in its own repo. The original proposal says it could go > > into > > > a folder under utilities, but I think flexunit is a better model. > > > 2) Swiz will have active development but release separately from the > SDK. > > > The activity level isn't quite clear from the original proposal. > People > > > need to be comfortable that this activity isn't an endorsement or > > > favoritism. > > > 3) Acceptance of Swiz is not an endorsement or favoritism. > > > 4) Any other app framework is welcomed to be donated via the same > > process. > > > > > > This vote thread will be open for the next 72 hours > > > > > > Please make your vote. > > > > > > -- João Fernandes
