You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com> on 2015/04/30 09:55:08 UTC
VOTE RESULT: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui
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.
>>>>
>
>
Re: VOTE RESULT: Begin Replacing OFBiz Framework With Moqui
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxsystems.com>.
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 "David E. Jones" <de...@me.com>.
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.
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 Nicolas Malin <ni...@nereide.fr>.
I confirm, thanks Adrian for this !
Nicolas
Le 30/04/2015 10:15, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> Thanks for the initiative Adrian!
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 30/04/2015 09:55, Adrian Crum a écrit :
>> 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>.
Thanks for the initiative Adrian!
Jacques
Le 30/04/2015 09:55, Adrian Crum a écrit :
> 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 Michael Brohl <mi...@ecomify.de>.
Thank you, Adrian for taking this effort and starting the discussion.
I know it's not binding and it does not change the vote's result, but
you missed my vote (sent 26.April 19:39).
Regards,
Michael Brohl
ecomify GmbH
www.ecomify.de
Am 30.04.15 um 09:55 schrieb Adrian Crum:
> 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
>