In reference to <http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html>, Steve McConnell wrote:
> The proposal document outlines an > enhancement to semantics of the +1, > +-0 and -1 voting model as > described below: > > Each vote on an action item can be made > in one of three four flavors: > > +1 The action should be performed, and I will help. > +0 Abstain, I support the action but I can't help. > -0 Abstain, I don't support the action but > I can't help with an alternative. > -1 The action should not be performed and > I am offering an explanation or alternative. > > I think the addition of the qualification > "and I will help" or "I can't help" is > orthoginal to the expression of support > for something. I agree that the axes of "for/against" and "can participate/can't participate" are orthogonal, but I strongly agree with combining the two axes for the purpose of binding votes. It's not enough to simply think a change/action item is a good idea, you need to be willing to *actively* support it for the vote to be binding. This idea isn't new or unique to Jakarta--all the ASF projects use those semantics. The HTTPD Guidelines <http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html> contains a longer form of that "Voting carries obligations" paragraph, namely: "The act of voting carries certain obligations -- voting members are not only stating their opinion, they are agreeing to help do the work of the Apache Project. Since we are all volunteers, members often become inactive for periods of time in order to take care of their "real jobs" or devote more time to other projects. It is therefore unlikely that the entire group membership will vote on every issue. To account for this, all voting decisions are based on a minimum quorum." which I think helps explain why the "and I will help" part is important. - Rod
