-0 on voting on whether we need a vote. On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote:
> I'm fine without a vote. (are we voting on wether we need a vote?) > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> I think a VOTE is over-thinking it, and is rarely used, but, can't hurt. >> Nah, anyone can call a vote. This really isn't that formal. We just want to >> declare and document consensus. >> >> I think SPIP is just a remix of existing process anyway, and don't think >> it will actually do much anyway, which is why I am sanguine about the whole >> thing. >> >> To bring this to a conclusion, I will just put the contents of the doc in >> an email tomorrow for a VOTE. Raise any objections now. >> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> wrote: >> >>> I started this idea as a fork with a merge-able change to docs. >>> Reynold moved it to his google doc, and has suggested during this >>> email thread that a vote should occur. >>> If a vote needs to occur, I can't see anything on >>> http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html suggesting that I can call >>> for a vote, which is why I'm asking PMC members to do it since they're >>> the ones who would vote anyway. >>> Now Sean is saying this is a code/doc change that can just be reviewed >>> and merged as usual...which is what I tried to do to begin with. >>> >>> The fact that you haven't agreed on a process to agree on your process >>> is, I think, an indication that the process really does need >>> improvement ;) >>> >>> >
