Hmm. I'm not sure I understand. As far as I understand, any vote here is unanimous, but not majority. I.e., if anyone in community has objections, vote is declined (already not a democracy, right? :) ). If so, I really don't see any difference between "consensus is recorded by no objections being raised" and "consensus is recorded by the vote being passed".
There should be a moment of time when the change in the process is applied. What if I really don't care how branching is organized, but just want to write code? In this case I would like to have the process documented and, if there are any changes, to know when they come into play. IMHO, closed vote can be a good formal indicator for this. Are you against any formal procedures per se, or I'm missing something in this particular case? -Val On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > -- > Regards, > Cos > > On June 8, 2015 1:20:56 PM GMT+03:00, "Branko Čibej" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >On 07.06.2015 18:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >> I'm with Brane on this one (unlike git cherry picking ;). Vote is a > >tool to > >> record a consensus reached via a discussion/collaboration. > > > >No, it's not, that's exactly my point: Consensus is recorded by no > >objections being raised on the appropriate mailing list (dev@ for > >public > >discussions) during a reasonable amount of time. You do *not* vote to > >"record consensus". Voting is a formal procedure that is either > >mandated > >by legal requirements (e.g., for releases) or used when consensus > >cannot > >be reached -- and in the latter case, it should not be used because ASF > >communities do not operate by majority rule. > > That's exactly what I said: it isn't democracy (sorry for using this word > in a polite company). > > >Cos, I expected better from you. :) > > Sorry to disappoint you ;) >
