Cool, thanks Bobby. Is someone going to do a separate vote for Doug's suggestion?
On 2 April 2013 17:05, Robert Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think I messed this up but if I for the binding/non-binding count > wrong then please forgive me. > With 9-binding +1s 8-non-binding +1s and no vetoes the vote passes. > > I will update the bylaws accordingly. > > --Bobby > > > On 3/28/13 11:07 AM, "Jason Lowe" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >+1 (binding) > > > >Jason > > > >On 03/25/2013 01:28 PM, Robert Evans wrote: > >> As per Aaron's request I am starting a new voting thread to make it > >>obvious that there is a vote happening. > >> > >> I propose that we change the term "lazy consensus" to "consensus > >>approval" (aka s/lazy\s+consensus/consensus approval/gi) in the bylaws > >>so that it matches the terms used in the apache foundation glossary. No > >>actual change to our voting would take place, just the term we use to > >>describe that voting. > >> > >> As per the by-laws this would take a "lazy majority" of active PMC > >>members (although others are encouraged to speak up). > >> > >> Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and > >>more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. > >> > >> Voting lasts 7 days, so it closes Monday April 1st (But this is not a > >>joke). > >> > >> I am +1 (binding) > >> > >> --Bobby > > > > -- NS
