On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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.
Hear! Hear! ... > > — > 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) > -- Cheers, Ian C
