Yes. That is my understanding as well. My suggestion is that we should make the time required to get the 3 votes shorter, recognizing schedule conflicts will arise.
We have some experimental evidence about how likely it is to take a certain amount of time to get the votes with due diligence. My feeling is that we need to shorten that time a bit and we have the raw materials to do so. On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Andrew Musselman < [email protected]> wrote: > As I understand, there were enough votes though it did take a while to > find them. > > Could be the extended voting period and the roll-backs obscured that fact.. > > > On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> However my personal take is that in case getting 3 PM votes is a > problem, > >> then we as a community have a problem with too few people having time to > >> actually respond. > > > > I agree with the conditional, but disagree with the application to > Mahout. > > > > We just had a larger than usual number of PMC members who had schedule > > conflicts this time around. Over time, I think we probably should > increase > > the number of active PMC members. >
