Greg Stein wrote: > Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > Okay. Sam and others have convinced me. . though I reserve the right > > to taunt you all when the J.D.s enter and we have too much goofiness > > (more than I cause that is ;-) ) > > > > lets open it up and see what happens. if havoc is wreaked its > > correctable so I change my vote to +1 for all open. I think thats the > > forming consensus so lets wrap this up in the next day or so and just do > > it. Then some karma blessed person should update the "site". > > Euh... how about giving the vote more than 24 hours? Vote taking should > preferably be given about 72 hours. There are always cases where it needs to > be shortened, but this isn't one of them.
The planet had not even rotated half-way around. The "vote" started at 23:30 last night Australian time. I got my mail early on Sunday morning and some are saying that it is over. ? Sorry, i trust that my next statement is not too disruptive, but it is important to get things straight early, hence ... I think that this vote may not have followed decent procedures. We were asked on a Friday to wait until the subscriber base of "community" had built and fade out on "reorg". One of the first threads on the list is a vote! I was under the impression that a clear [PROPOSAL} is discussed first to formulate the intent of a vote. The options that are arrived at during that thread are then clearly stated by the originator of the proposal in a subsequent ]VOTE] thread. This vote was too rushed. I see people voting +1 on two options, and others trying to re-write the options to be clearer on what is being voted for. On a related issue, i am having trouble finding any docs about voting procedures for the Apache community. --David
