On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> After much thought, I am voting -1 for 1 main reason. > > 1: From the get-go, this appears headed towards an umbrella project. > Too many ways to justify "yeah, this belongs here" and far too > few ways to justify "nope, this doesn't quite fit in". So > whether TLP or part of Felix (as was the discussion), this appears > too comprehensive. This comment surprised me enough to read this proposal again, and I have to agree with Jim. On one hand, the proposal starts out to speak of "current and future EEG specifications", but then becomes very blur of what that really means. Components, not solutions, not a server, not a framework, but "components" could as Jim points out mean everything (or at least anything one can stick in a Bundle in OSGi lingo). Does it warrants a -1? Yes, I think it does. But considering how many PMC members are on the roster, I doubt it will stop anything. -1 from me, until I see a limitation in scope that is "describable"... I like the intent, but not the formulation. Look at your current plans, distill the essence and put that in the proposal. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
