On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > 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.
IMO this is more a graduation issue, rather than something that should prevent entry to the incubator - since thats when destination is decided. There are many possible outcomes from that - perhaps some parts will go to felix and others to a new TLP(s) - but I say lets see how it works out during graduation rather than shooting it down now. Niall Niall > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
