> On Oct 18, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > On 10/18/2017 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: >> On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... >>> I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to >>> justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them. >> +1 (as a user) >> ASF does a hell of a job to discourage participation! I particularly like >> this gem "the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, *and >> all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the noise down)* or >> else have their votes considered of an indicative or advisory nature only. >> I'm glad AOO PMC members take these recommendations with a pinch of salt. > > I particularly dislike the "only" in "advisory nature only". The success > of AOO depends on the advice of every community member who cares enough > to download a release candidate and test it.
I proposed the following new logic on the comdev mailing list. Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific thing. However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, and all other votes are advisory. It turns out that this awful language on the voting page goes back to at least July 2004. Thanks to Pedro for pointing it out. It should be changed in the next few days. Regards, Dave > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
