[fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

[Jason Birch]

I understand that this is a bit of a special case, but I am a bit
worried that we are being selective about format support at this point
in the project's life cycle.  

There is a clear desire for the simple provider that is proposed in
RFC16, and a community member that is willing to develop it.  If this
never goes beyond basic utility, then that's fine with me.  If the
developers of the SDF provider decide that there is value in the format
and performance enhancements in this new provider, that's also fine.
But I don't believe that this innovation should be held back by a desire
to make one size fit all.

The lack of additional votes can't really be construed to mean anything,
as the members who haven't voted (other than you) have also not
contributed to the discussion.

Jason



-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 08:40
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

Hi Jason,

Personally, I would like to see additional deliberation on this issue
before it is formally adopted.

While the ideas expressed in the RFC are interesting and have merit, I
do not believe we have fully addressed the proposed future roadmaps for
the SDF and SQLite providers and how they are to be positioned and
supported within the FDO community. Also, I do not believe we have fully
explored all the possibilities of taking the SDF code stream and
functionality and moving it to meet the objectives outlined in RFC 16.

The fact that we only have 3 votes so far, speaks to these facts.

Regards,
Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:27 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

We seem to have hit a bit of a wall on this vote.  The 48 hour deadline
has gone by with three +1's and no further votes.  There has been
considerable discussion, but it appears to have come to a standstill.

At this point, the motion has technically passed, but I really don't
feel comfortable declaring this result without some guidance.  Thoughts?

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Birch
Subject: [fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

Given the modifications to the RFC to address questions raised on this
list, and a lack of further discussion I hereby move to approve FDO RFC
16 - FDO Provider for SQLite.

https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc16

+1 from me
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals