On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:09 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> >> On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Upayavira wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 09:50 -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >>>> So, how does this get resolved? Shall I call a formal vote for the >>>> IPMC? I rather like the name, but (somewhat) understand the >>>> objections. That being said, I'm not all that clever at naming, so... >>> >>> You rather like which name?? >> >> ACF >> >>> >>> My take: >>> >>> 1. come up with a name. >>> 2. check for exixting uses of that name >>> 3. if it passes #2 then get support of your PPMC >>> 4. Propose it to IPMC. >>> 5. Vote on the IPMC about the name. >>> >>> If you want, you can add #4a: discuss with IPMC whether a vote is really >>> required for this, in which case you might be able to skip #5, but that >>> process would probably be slower in the end! >> >> Well, I would argue we did all that, with the exception of a formal IPMC >> vote (although we did ask here). It seemed to pass muster until a week >> later, a fair amount of time after we went and made the changes. >> > > I responded within 5 hours of the proposal. AFAICT the PPMC members have not > responded to that post at all.
Agreed, you did indeed respond. We had the discussion on the Connectors mailing list. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
