> On 23 Aug 2015, at 11:51 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > > Abstentions are not to be discussed. Abstentions are abstentions. And why > discuss them in private? The [VOTE] was done here. There is no private@ > business called for. The only ballot that requires an explanation is a -1.
I was going to keep the discussion to private@, but since you prefer to have it in public, I’ll continue it here. We, as a team of individuals voluntarily coming together to work on a project, can decide what we want to discuss. Anyone can raise a topic on a mailing list. Whether or not you believe a topic is appropriate is not the determining factor of whether it should be discussed; others may consider it important. While votes may not be officially required from all PPMC members, I believe that anyone who genuinely cares about a project and (barring absence or illness) is able to vote on such an important matter as a first release should do so - particularly when they have raised issues during the pre-vote period. I assumed given your interest in the points you raised in pre-vote, that you had enough interest in the outcome to make an actual vote. > Furthermore, I take personal exception to my abstention in the [PRE-VOTE] > being carried forward, effectively, against my wishes, and reported anyhow > when it is not applicable to this [VOTE]. That is unacceptable. Please do > not do that again. Jan very explicitly stated that your abstention (which you made on the public list) was *not* being carried forward, along with an explanation of the reason for this. Given that Jan had mentioned in the announcement that any votes expressed in the pre-vote period would be carried forward unless otherwise stated, I think this explanation was warranted. Again this is another really pointless procedural issue, which I’m sick of discussing. I’ve spent the whole weekend working on an implementation Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm to assist with the static verification of transformations between different documents. Every time I come onto the list I hope to see something about development and all I find is more arguing about procedures. I think this is actively harmful to the project and we should be focusing on getting stuff done, not wasting our time on trivia. — Dr Peter M. Kelly pmke...@apache.org PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
