Stephen McConnell wrote: ...
I voted in favour of the principal -and I think was discussed at the time - the vote is basically a show of hands - its an expression of consensus on the approach but it is also meaningless in that failur to do the above has no substantive impact on the procedures. I.e. this is a decision - is result for a call for the "sense of house". This need to be a little clearer in the notes.Ok, here is the full of what is written in the STATUS file now (I posted before only the last part).
"
o The STATUS file is a great mean of synching the community agenda.
To be effective, it must be uptodate, and I can't do it all
myself.
Proposals should be entered as such, votes should have listed all
current votes and the vote start date, and when the issue item is
completed, the names of the voters are removed and it's resolved,
positive or negative. Releases too should be listed.
Votes and all action items that are placed in the STATUS file
are valid if done by their rules. In other words, the STATUS file
does not validate them in any way, it's just a community synch
tool.
If something doesn't go into the status file, it still exists and
is
perfectly valid.
I'm asking you, do you want that for each [Proposal] and [Vote]
and release there be an entry in the STATUS file, that has to be
updated by the original item proposal?
"
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-avalon/STATUS.txt?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Is this ok? :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
