[collections][lang] Functors vote result

[Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>]

Two votes were taken on functors:

Vote #1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg13389.html
Make [collections] depend on [lang], Functors located in [lang]
+1  Stephen, Henri, Scott
no other votes
This vote would be treated as a 'product change lazy consensus' [1]. It
passes this.

Vote #2:
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg13769.html
Create new [functor] component (presumably for [collections] to depend on,
although not actually stated)
+1  Rodney, Morgan
+0  Craig, Martin
-1  Costin, Stephen
If this vote is to create a new sandbox component, then by the commons
charter anyone can do this without a vote. If the vote is for collections to
depend on a new component in commons proper, then it is a 'product change
lazy consensus' [1]. It fails this due to two vetoes.


So, which vote won? I believe that the rules means vote #1 did, although
more people voted on vote #2. As I want to get this sorted (and finally move
forward), I intend to work on this basis and add the dependency to [lang]
from [collections] on Saturday/Sunday. So this is your last chance to
object!

Stephen

[1] Jakarta decision making
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [collections][lang] Functors vote result

[Rodney Waldhoff <rw...@apache.org>]

I'm not sure these two proposals should necessarily be considered mutually
exclusive.  It might be silly to approve both, but the answer to "which
vote wins" could legitimately be "both".

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> Two votes were taken on functors:
>
> Vote #1:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg13389.html
> Make [collections] depend on [lang], Functors located in [lang]
> +1  Stephen, Henri, Scott
> no other votes
> This vote would be treated as a 'product change lazy consensus' [1]. It
> passes this.

Consider
<http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org&msgNo=20909>
my to -1 on that proposal, at least until the concerns expressed there are
addressed in one way or another.

>
> Vote #2:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg13769.html
> Create new [functor] component (presumably for [collections] to depend on,
> although not actually stated)
> +1  Rodney, Morgan
> +0  Craig, Martin
> -1  Costin, Stephen

> If this vote is to create a new sandbox component, then by the commons
> charter anyone can do this without a vote.

As stated, that proposal is to create a new commons component named
functor, with the described scope.

> If the vote is for collections to
> depend on a new component in commons proper,

As stated, "Other components and projects that apply the functor idiom are
encouraged but not required to use and extend the Functor implementation."


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>