Hi,
Two voters have changed their votes, so here is the revised result:
[1] +4, 0 vetoes
[2] +1, 2 vetoes
[3] +0, 2 vetoes
[4] +1, 0 vetoes
Matthias, you paved the way for t:ajax :-)
Lets's go ... now, implementing t:ajax involves upgrading tomhawk to 2.0
... I offer to go for it.
1. Has someone set up a tomahawk20 branch?
2. I guess not, so is it ok if I do so?
3. Who are the current maintainers of tomhawk 1.1 und tomahawk 1.2?
Best Regards,
Ganesh
Ganesh schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Vote was closed by 2009-04-27 09:55 a.m. Final results of the vote:
> [1] +3, 1 veto
> [2] +1, 3 vetoes
> [3] +0, 3 vetoes
> [4] +1, 0 vetoes
>
> Thus, no consensus has been reached by this vote. This is, what the
decision making process on
http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making prescribes:
>
> >>The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative
proposal or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote.
The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative proposal
that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the concerns
leading to the negative vote can be addressed.
> This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a
very important indication of a healthy community.<<
>
> So, as everybody has given alternative proposals, all vetoers are
asked to give detailed explanations for their negative votes to enable
consensus gathering. My personal observation is that everybody was
pretty fast with emitting vetoes making me feel I'm at the UNO security
council :-) Imho and though I can't emit a binding vote solutions [1] to
[3] all aren't that bad. Maybe everybody who emitted a veto could
consider weakening it to a +0 thus opening the path for a majority decision?
>
> Best Regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Ganesh schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are trying to agree on a way to include the optimization options
pps:true/false, queuesize:n, errorlevel:WARNING/ERROR/NONE for JSF 2.0
Javascript with the MyFaces JSF 2.0 implementation.
> > We've got 4 different proposed solutions, each has been checked for
technical feasability:
> >
> > 1.) extra options packed in a new t:ajax tag and myfaces.ajax.request
> > 2.) optimization options as attributes of f:ajax
> > 3.) optimization options within f:attributes nested in f:ajax
> > 4.) a separate taglibrary with a single tag mf:ajax included with
the core
> > Please consider the solutions and vote! See previous mails on this
list with "f:ajax and MyFaces extensions" in the subject for further
details.
> >
> > Please note:
> > This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three +1 votes.
This is a code modification vote [1], so you can veto a solution with a
vote of -1. Please vote whole numbers. You can give a vote on each of
the 4 solutions. E.g. you can vote:
> >
> > 1.) +1
> > 2.) +1
> > 3.) +0
> > 4.) -1
> >
> > The vote lasts for 72 hours. It start on 2009-04-24 9:55 a.m. and
ends on 2009-04-27 09:55 a.m.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > [ ] +1 - you favourize this solution
> > [ ] +0 - you don't like this solution
> > [ ] -1 - you veto this solution
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Ganesh Jung
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
>
