The original vote was for 7 days - we can declare this as failed and start a new one (excluding Richard) for just the next 4 days... end result ideally being the same as the original intended
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 22:10, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:14:56 -0300, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Richard's binding vote btw seems to mean that the whole vote will >>> fail (Ulrich cannot change the interpretation of a binding vote with >>> "their negative vote means that they will be excluded from the >>> removal"). >> That's how Apache works: one -1 binding vote, the vote result is no. > > Not necessarily - that's why I said "seems to". If the voting style is > not specified as was the case here, the default is majority with lazy > consensus. A veto vote is the default only on code modification > issues. There's still four binding for-votes but on an issue like this > I really wouldn't go against any binding vote. > >>> It seems that the right path forward is to vote for each >>> removal separately, of course the votes could run in parallel. >> Or just vote to remove everyone in the original list except Richard, as he >> was the only one to say something. > > Yes, that might work as well. > > Kalle > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Andreas Andreou - [email protected] - http://blog.andyhot.gr Tapestry PMC / Tacos developer Open Source / JEE Consulting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
