You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxsystems.com> on 2015/05/01 08:10:56 UTC
Re: VOTE RESULT: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui
On Apr 30, 2015, at 11:12 PM, David E. Jones <de...@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 <ad...@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.
>>>
>
Re: VOTE RESULT: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
Or even a scope of what the project encompasses.
Ron
On 02/05/2015 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Thanks Jacques!
>
> One of the biggest challenges ahead will be trying to build consensus
> - since we can't even agree on how a vote should be worded.
>
> Adrian Crum
> Sandglass Software
> www.sandglass-software.com
>
> On 5/1/2015 7:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> 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 <de...@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
>>>>> <ad...@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.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: VOTE RESULT: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Thanks Jacques!
One of the biggest challenges ahead will be trying to build consensus -
since we can't even agree on how a vote should be worded.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 5/1/2015 7:36 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> 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 <de...@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
>>>> <ad...@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.
>>>>>
>>
>>
Re: VOTE RESULT: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
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 <de...@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 <ad...@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.
>>>>
>
>