-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> > So, do we require: > > - (a) 3 +1s? seems a bit low, in my opinion > > - (b) a majority of the PMC? I think this is most appropriate > > - (c) 3/4s of the PMC, Jakarta style? too much. > > I'm hoping someone can say "oh yeah, we decided on (b) ages ago!" > > here, btw. > > (a) is 50% of the current PMC > (b) is 2/3 of the current PMC > (c) is 5 people of the 6 in the PMC > > So given our current numbers, I think (a) or (b) is appropriate. > Moving forward, if the PMC numbers grow, I agree that (a) is too small. > I think requiring 1/2 to 2/3 is a good number. > > BTW, I haven't had the time to read the docs and such regarding the > specific details, but I'm +1 on the idea of the subproject. oh good ;) FWIW, I think I prefer (b) -- a "majority", in other words a smidgen over 1/2. we now qualify. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFDA/wAMJF5cimLx9ARAkh4AJ9negHmnA5xUiU2CYk2rYBMxYbIMgCeP7xf DpmPaY1dbJUBnLTT02lFY/c= =1fKm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
