I vote for confidence only. While I'd like to help more in 2.x, it's
impossible for me to follow through with my intention sometimes. However, I
wouldn't want a good release help up by external obligations. I would hope a
good vibrant community would bring the intention of helping automatically,
but that shouldn't automatically translated into an obligation. My 2 cents.

Paul

On Jan 14, 2008 7:25 PM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The ASF "How it work page", at "Implications of Voting", suggest that
>
> ---
> "In some cases and communities, the exercise of a vote carries some
> responsibilities that may not be immediately obvious. For example, in
> some cases a favorable vote carries the implied message 'I approve and
> I'm willing to help.' Also, an unfavorable vote may imply that 'I
> disapprove, but I have an alternative and will help with that
> alternative.'
>
> "The tacit implications of voting should be spelt out in the
> community's guidelines. However, in no case may someone's vote be
> considered invalid if the implied commitment doesn't appear to be met;
> a vote is a formal expression of opinion, not of commitment."
> ----
>
> Our community guidelines suggest that:
>
> ----
> "The act of voting carries certain obligations. Voters are not only
> stating their opinion, they are also agreeing to help do the work."
> ---
>
> While we would never discount a binding vote of a PMC member, I
> believe we could agree, as a community, that if someone casts a
> binding vote for a GA release, it is our expectation that the PMC
> Member is declaring his or her intention to support the release.
>
> So, is a +1 on a GA merely a vote of confidence in the bits, or should
> the vote also be declaring an intention to help?
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to