Hi, On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:32 PM Neil C Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 09:44, Bertrand Delacretaz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's basically what a [LAZY] consensus vote is, as per > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus > > Out of interest, is there any wider Apache model for what I initially > suggested? ie. simple tasks / verifications requiring more than one > PMC member to be involved? As a way of ensuring a double check on > requirements rather than making a decision...
I think the standard voting system, lazy or not, does that? Requiring 3 +1s for example means "more than one PMC member has checked". > ...If we do end up with some form of vote thread, lazy or not, then we > should probably also apply the principal of > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto on convenience > binary threads.... Formal vetos can be problematic as they allow people to block things. But if course if someone casts a -1 on a convenience binary and provides a good reason for it it shouldn't be ignored. -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
