Here's what I didn't like. The vote was: * ambiguous * something that the Solr devs tried to push through and bullied folks on during discussion (those who originally had questions were persuaded that it was the "right thing to do" by those in the PMC leadership). * not healthy for the project * subject to VETO since at the very least it proposes code modifications, but also because: - there have been seemingly hundreds of emails over the last week just to discuss this issue, with there being enough misunderstanding to have folks recommending that we (a) break the proposal up into concrete, actionable (retractable) steps, and; (b) at the very least sitting on it for a week and then revisiting the issue.
Also rather than "speculating" on what the board will do, I'd rather just find out. Cheers, Chris On 3/12/10 5:26 AM, "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com> wrote: What's it that you don't like about the vote? o that it wasn't prepended with enough community [DISCUSS] o the phrasing of the vote itself o the length of the voting process o the outcome of the vote o something else Just curious. BTW, I think it will be hard to appeal to the board or any other body of the ASF (IMHO). The Lucene PMC is tasked with directing the project and functional in doing so (as far as I can see). And honestly, if there would be another VOTE (or 10 such votes), wouldn't the outcome in terms of general direction of the project be the same, entirely? Bernd ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
