I think it is a great idea. And if he wants to call a vote I would be happy to support it.
--Bobby On 4/2/13 11:08 AM, "Noah Slater" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
