Martijn Dashorst wrote: > On 12/4/06, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Martijn Dashorst wrote: >> > I don't like to deprecate listview. It has enough good usecases to >> > keep it and promote its use. And furthermore, I would like to know >> > *which* repeaters move to core... >> > >> > Therefore: -1 for the proposal (either outcome) >> >> Is this a formal veto for the whole thing, or would you accept it if we >> move some repeaters to core and don't deprecate ListView? > > As the proposal currently stands it is a veto. If the proposal is > amended/changed, I will change my vote. The current proposal just > doesn't leave much room for the middle way. > In this particular case, I found the premise bad: ListView does not > suck, and should remain in core.
Right, but what haven't you stated this when voting -1? That would have helped people realize that another approach is possible, especially when it's as simple as not deprecating ListView. > I really don't like votes where halfway through the voting subjects > change. This is a horrible precedent, and clouds the meaning of > earlier votes. On the other hand, starting 5 vote threads to get one > thing fixed is also not helpful and just as bad. I don't see it like that. A vote was started, whose propositions led you to raise a veto. Now although a veto blocks the modification, it should be justified [1] to allow further discussion and alternative proposals, i.e. trigger the community dynamics. Such alternative proposals can then lead to a new vote, which is what happened here. My 0.02 € Sylvain [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto -- Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
