1, 2, 5 Items 3, 4 are unreasonable, IMO, and not beneficial to the community at large.
Cos On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 06:03PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > My sincere apologies. I messed up on option (4) - it should read: > > > (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 3. Effectively postpone > > discussion by 2 months, start a timer now. > > instead of > > > (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. > > > Let me restart the vote. > > Arun > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Arun C Murthy 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. > > > > thanks, > > Arun > > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote > > > > -- > Arun C. Murthy > Hortonworks Inc. > http://hortonworks.com/ > >
