[VOTE] should we release eml-2.0.0 now?

[Peter McCartney]

I agree Scott. I think we will just have to play that one by ear and not let
us paint ourselves into a box on technicalities. "backwards compatiblity"
may devolve to providing translation tools for upgrading eml2.x documents to
future versions. major vendors do that to us all the time - we hate it, but
we go along with it because we worry more about future compatibiltiy than we
to backwards:)

for example, im not sure we wont just decide upon more feedback that
classifying attributes into stevens measurement scales was a mistake. if so,
id rather scrap it then struggle to make it work. Im also not sure that we
wont decide to return to triples as better tools for working with them are
developed in SEEK. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Chapal [mailto:scott.chapal at jonesctr.org]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:41 PM
To: Matt Jones
Cc: eml-dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] should we release eml-2.0.0 now?



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
_______________________________________________
eml-dev mailing list
eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/eml-dev/attachments/20021209/77937584/attachment.htm