What was insufficiently explicit about William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:-1 for apr-util / apr-iconv.
which Paul replied to?
I still don't see any message from you on any list that said that. Did you happen to vote in private?
Oh, I'm counting your +1, my -1. Presuming the RM voted +1 since he rolled it, I get 1 vote. Not 3. This is an absolute violation of our charter and operating guidelines.
With that, the counter is at four hours, and I will pull down this apr-iconv tarball unless the vote concludes in favor of this tarball.
I still think this is an over-reaction as no one operated in bad faith here. I maintain that any effort would be better placed at fixing the problems and rolling a new apr-iconv 1.1.0 that fixes whatever problem you seem to think is present today. That could likely be done in less time with less animosity and less emails. -- justin
