2 1 3 4 5 My vote is non-binding, fwiw.
-Shaneal On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>> We've discussed several options: >>> >>> (1) Rename branch-0.22 to branch-2, rename branch-0.23 to branch-3. >>> (2) Rename branch-0.23 to branch-3, keep branch-0.22 as-is i.e. leave a >>> hole. >>> (3) Rename branch-0.23 to branch-2, keep branch-0.22 as-is. >>> (4) If security is fixed in branch-0.22 within a short time-frame i.e. 2 >>> months then we get option 1, else we get option 2. Effectively postpone >>> discussion by 2 months, start a timer now. >>> (5) Do nothing, keep branch-0.22 and branch-0.23 as-is. >>> >>> Let's do a STV [1] to get reach consensus. >>> >>> Please vote by listing the options above in order of your preferences. >> >> Not sure whether this vote is open to all community members, committers or >> PMC >> (Arun, could you, please, clarify?) but here's my vote: > > As always, everyone is welcome to vote. PMC votes are binding. > > Forgot to add, the vote will run the normal 7 days. > > Thanks for voting Roman. > > Arun
