Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, it does matter IMO. Doing it that way disenfranchises the > other people in the process. It also means there's no public/official > discussion about a release before it's approved.
I already said my comment (read: not a vote) on IRC was not a vote. I *perhaps* made a boo-boo by not remembering to email my vote and Michael *perhaps* made a boo-boo by counting my IRC comment as a vote, but way too big a deal has been made over this. However, there's no disenfranchising possible here. The Apache voting process merely requires 3 +1 votes to make a release -- no discussion, no 24-hour delays, none of that is required. Also, vetos are non-binding for making releases. Technically, however, we still have never had a third +1 vote for 3.0.3 (I only count two: Michael's and Justin's), but here's a third explicit vote: +1 to release 3.0.3 The ASF doesn't allow vetos of releases to avoid (generally) this type of release issue. > Either we act as a group and do things publically (ie: lists and BZ > (which end up on the lists)) so everyone can be in on the discussion, > or we have factions where small groups of people do things amongst > themselves. I prefer the former. Nobody here disagrees with you. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
