[VOTE] should we release eml-2.0.0 now?

[Scott Chapal]

approve.

It has to be released to move forward at all.  However I have
reservations regarding the plausibility of achieving backwards
compatibility starting from 2.0.0.  But, that's not sufficient concern
to delay testing and using EML in its current form.

-Scott

Matt Jones <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu> writes:

> CALL FOR VOTES:
> ---------------
> I, as an EML Project member, agree that we should release the current
> set of files from CVS that are tagged RELEASE_EML_2_0_0 as the final
> EML 2.0.0 version.  This includes agreement that we will make every
> possible effort to maintain backwards compatibility with this release
> from this point forward (i.e., any document that is valid for EML
> 2.0.0 would also be valid for any new versions of EML that might be
> created in the future).
> 
> 
> Vote one of:
> ------------
>     Approve: I understand and agree with the release proposal
>     Neutral: I am neutral
> Disapprove: I block this from occurring (explanation required)
> 
> Deadline:
> ---------
> Wed., December 11, 2003
> 
> Project member      Vote
> ---------------     ---------
> Tim Bergsma
> Chad Berkley
> David Blankman
> Matthew Brooke
> James Brunt
> Scott Chapal
> Corinna Gries
> Daniel Higgins
> Matthew Jones       approve
> Chris Jones
> Peter McCartney
> Ken Ramsey
> Mark Schildhauer
> 
> 
> I will collate the results after Wednesday.  We need a quorum (9
> voters) and of those who cast a vote, at least 2/3 approval and no
> disapprove votes.  Looking forward to hearing your opinions...
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eml-dev mailing list
> eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev

-- 
\SEC