maybe the idea of a quorum for committers might be useful when calculating super majorities in the commons.
- robert On Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at 08:20 PM, Scott Sanders wrote: > So you will be proposing a change of the process so that we can > 'discuss' it and put it to a vote? > > Scott > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:24 PM >> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move >> >> >> I agree, the rule needs to be changed. I just counted 24 >> Commons committers. Even if we only count active committers >> for a vote, the number already seems untenable. >> >> For the record, I think AltRMI coming to Commons would be "a >> good thing". I do believe that we should follow the rules we >> have defined for ourselves, though. So I say we define new >> criteria for bringing a project to Commons first, and then >> vote on AltRMI according to the new criteria. >> >> -- >> Martin Cooper >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:25 AM >> Subject: RE: [Vote] ARMI to move >> >> >>> That should be fixed. >>> >>> Due to its nature, it will soon become impossible to have >> 3/4 of all >>> the Commons committers to pay attention to something in the >> same week! >>> >>> >>> Have fun, >>> Paulo Gaspar >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:44 PM >>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >>>> Subject: RE: [Vote] ARMI to move >>>> >>>> >>>> According to the wesite, you are correct. I thought it was >>>> different. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:36 AM >>>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't think so. The positive super-majority is >> based on the >>>>> number of subproject (i.e. Commons) committers, not the >> number of >>>>> package (i.e. ARMI, in this case) committers. So basically, it >>>>> needs 3/4 of all Commons committers to approve. At >> least, that's >>>>> how I read it. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Martin Cooper >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Scott Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:08 AM >>>>> Subject: RE: [Vote] ARMI to move >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It looks like you have the positive super majority. We should >>>>> wait a while longer before moving it, so any lingering >> votes can >>>>> come out. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:11 AM >>>>>> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't you need more active committers? >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting question. My initial assumption was that, yes, >>>>> that's what >>>>>> the rules say. However, on checking the Commons charter, it >>>>>> doesn't actually say how many committers are required for a >>>>>> package to be accepted (or if it does, I missed it). >> The Jakarta >>>>>> rules do, of course. Perhaps this is something we >> should define? >>>>>> >>>>>> The vote for acceptance, however, is well defined as >> a positive >>>>>> super-majority. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Martin Cooper >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:50 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vote] ARMI to move >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't you need more active committers? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/02 6:35 PM, "Paul Hammant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons-sandbox/armi/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have done a lot of work on ARMI and think it is time >>>>>> for me to ask >>>>>>>> committers to vote for a move of this tool from 'sandbox' >>>>>> in to the >>>>>>>> main CVS tree. It also needs a rename (ARMI is already >>>>>> used in the >>>>>>>> context of Java by another academic team). Please do not >>>>>> think of >>>>>>>> this as a full replacement for RMI. It is merely an >>>>> alternative >>>>>>>> that bizarely might be most useful (to Avalon) entirely >>>>>> inside one >>>>>>>> VM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With respect to the rename, I think FacadePublisher gives >>>>>> the most >>>>>>>> meaning, but is not snappy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, I guess I have no vote myself as I am only a >> committer >>>>>>>> to 'soapbox' but I would be interested to know if know the >>>>>> outcome of a >>>>>>>> vote from those that do...... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two votes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) for ARMI being renamed to FacadePublisher (or other) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) for migrating from 'soapbox' to main CVS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Paul H >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> System and Software Consulting >>>>>>> "He who throws mud only loses ground." - Fat Albert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> For >>>>>> additional commands, >>>>>> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> For >>>>> additional commands, >>>>> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> For >>>>> additional commands, >>>>> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For >> additional commands, >> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. > org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. > org> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
