At least Adrian brought this on the table and it was worth beginning to discuss
:)
We know now that nobody would do it w/o a PoC
Jacques
Le 01/05/2015 08:10, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <d...@me.com> wrote:
This doesn’t seem to represent the responses very well. My vote shouldn’t be
considered a +1 unless my interpretation of the proposal (as a PoC in a branch)
was correct, and I saw no comment on that… in fact from this message it seems
that is explicitly NOT what the vote was supposed to be about based on the
comment that doing a PoC in a branch requires no vote.
I had the same thought: for example, I didn't understand why David's and my vote have
been classified as +1 and -1 respectively when I have clearly mentioned: "+1 to this
proposal by David".
Jacopo
Overall the vote proposal and discussion thread was very confusing, I don’t see
how you could get any sort of vote count out of it… most people replied with
multiple votes with different clarifications!
This VOTE RESULT never should have been done, the vote should simply have been
cancelled or reframed.
-David
On 30 Apr 2015, at 00:55, Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com>
wrote:
Here is the tally of the votes. This was a challenge because many replies
included votes for other things, so this tally represents my best effort at
counting votes for the original subject.
PMC Members (Binding)
---------------------
+0 | 2 (Adam Heath, Jacques Le Roux)
+1 | 1 (David Jones)
-1 | 3 (Nicolas Malin, Scott Gray, Jacopo Cappellato)
Others (non-Binding)
--------------------
+0 | 1 (Adrian Crum)
-1 | 2 (Ron Wheeler, Martin Becker)
The vote failed to pass with 3 -1 votes and 1 +1 vote.
The replies included a discussion about creating a POC branch to explore the
subject further. That can be done without a vote, so I will consider this vote
closed.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 4/26/2015 3:44 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
As was discussed last week, there is some interest in replacing some (or
all) of OFBiz with Moqui (http://www.moqui.org/framework/index.html).
To the scope reasonable, I propose that we begin by converting the
following parts of the OFBiz framework with Moqui:
Entity Engine
Service Engine
Security
Other parts of the OFBiz framework could be converted as well, but I
think this would be a good starting point, and if is successful, then
more of OFBiz can be converted later.
I believe we can create a thunk component to help solve compatibility
problems, but that is a separate discussion. I only mention it here in
case compatibility concerns might influence a vote.
