FYI. I just noticed the following bit in the middle of the libglade thread
today.
At 07:11 PM 2/8/01 +0100, Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>> For clarification, the Apache voting system has a veto, where if one
>> developer vetoes a change, that veto is final. To quote the apache
>> page:
>>
>> "Changes to the code are proposed on the mailing list and usually
>> voted on by active members -- three +1 (yes votes) and no -1 (no
>> votes, or vetoes) are needed to commit a code change during a release
>> cycle;"
I didn't know this, and was glibly threatening to veto things when I thought
I was just playfully expressing doubt or disagreement. My apologies. That
was unwittingly rude. If I ever really do *veto* something, it'll be
expressed via cvs commit, with a suitable explanation to this list.
If anyone would still like to advocate the implementation of an Apache-like
system, please make a concrete proposal here which summarizes how it works
(with URLs), and why you feel it would be appropriate for our community.
This snippet alone implies a very, very different system than what we've
always done, but it's now quite clear to me that I don't know enough to
intelligently comment on it.
Paul
