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] > >
