Sounds like there isn't a change here IMO - only someone simply saying, "Here are things that are being voted on or should be voted on - let's vote." Whatever the case, it should be discussed and voted on whether or not we should remove those two components. In lieu of the other information around them - I'm a +1 for removal of both (since the upgrade path on both is impossible) - unless there are people in the community actively using it and wanting to maintain it going forward.
Cheers, Ruppert -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
Sorry if I was unclear, what I am against is increasing the scope of changes that would require a vote, as I mentioned I don't think that would be necessary since we haven't really had any bad experiences so far that would make it worth considering.I'm 100% in favor of votes for the changes that would normally require a vote such as the two items you mentioned i.e. #1 and #3 but I don't agree with voting on #2 (based on the current state of the discussion). I also don't agree with Tim's request that birt be voted on, the reason being that I think everyone is in favor of it being incorporated into OFBiz, the only issues are of a licensing nature which prevent it from being committed regardless of any vote. And lastly I don't agree with Erwan's suggestion that a simple JUnit library upgrade should be voted upon.So I was saying lets keep things the way they are, everyone is pretty good at following protocol but by all means reiterate the importance of following that protocol.Regards Scott On 27/11/2009, at 10:26 AM, David E Jones wrote:If I understand right you (Scott) are talking about the procedural proposal. Right now the typical process, if a vote is needed and/or desired, is to have a 72-hour voting period, unless there are enough positive PMC votes before to make it pass regardless of possible negative votes.In any case, voting on these topics is probably a good idea, well at least for #1 since it is a change that may impact many people (even though in the discussion in seemed pretty supported), and #3 since there wasn't so much unanimity.-David On Nov 26, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Scott Gray wrote:-1, I think the system we have in place now works just fine. This discussion might be warranted if we've been having problems with people committing major changes to the framework without adequate discussion but that hasn't been happening and I don't think it's going to. I think all OFBiz committers have a good understanding of what is appropriate and we're all pretty good at reaching a consensus before making major changes.I do agree with reiterating the importance of discussing major changes in depth and reaching a consensus before committing though.Regards Scott On 27/11/2009, at 4:37 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:Lately there there have been some discussions about making big changes to the trunk. I would like to suggest that we summarize those proposed changes, create a voting thread for each change, and then send a friendly announcement to the user mailing list about the proposed changes that won the vote.In the USA we are in the midst of a major holiday, so we need to give others plenty of time to respond. So, how about this: let's list our proposed changes in this thread and wait a few days for responses. Sometime next week we can start the voting threads. About a week after that, summarize the voting results and send an announcement to the user mailing list. What do you think?To get things started, here are the proposed changes I am aware of: 1. Require Java 6 2. Remove Cloudscape support 3. Remove the Shark component Feel free to add others to the list. -Adrian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
