> On May 6, 2021, at 3:04 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It looks like you didn’t read the page. > > I did, of course. And my interpretation differs. > >> For clarity I am copying it here >> >> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless >> >> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than >> unfavourable ones, >> >> the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of the number of votes >> in each >> >> category. (If the number of votes seems too small to be representative of a >> community >> >> consensus, the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description >> of >> >> lazy consensus <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus >> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>> for a >> modifying factor.)" >> >> >> So a procedural vote requires a majority. > > There is a small majority (irrespective of the binding vs non-binding > categories).
In votes ONLY PMC member votes are counted. Other votes are advisory. PMC members should take those votes into account when voting. If you don’t understand that concept you shouldn’t be on a PMC. Trying to justify creating a new Commons component by endlessly discussing the topic just isn’t going to work. I’ll not be responding to more emails on this thread as I consider the matter closed. Ralph
