Hi, But remember the early days of this (or these) vote threads. I recall some people saying things like "I won't vote -1 since I don't want to veto the proposal, so I'll vote +|-0". I recall Doug being one of those people. I don't think we heard back from Doug in subsequent vote threads. I think there were a few others on the fence.
I don't think I even voted because things were not clear and there was too much discussion going on. If I had to vote, I think I'd vote -1 mainly because I believe that what I think the proposal's goal is can be achieved with the current structure. I mentioned this in some emails about a week ago, but nobody from +1 side reacted from what I recall. I agree that in general in life it's impossible to get 100% of people to agree on something and sometimes that means that a "largish minority" will have to live with a change they disagree with, but here I feel that there are other ways of achieving the desired goal, so it's not clear to me while those less drastic ways are not tried first. I'll send a separate email about those ways. Otis ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> > To: general@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 6:28:57 AM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3) > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Michael Busch < > ymailto="mailto:busch...@gmail.com"; > href="mailto:busch...@gmail.com";>busch...@gmail.com> wrote: > This > whole thing feels like it's been pushed through, and while I'm > not > against the updated proposal anymore (I voted +0), the bad > feeling that > consensus wasn't really reached remains. But: this vote is not expected > nor required to reach consensus. We as a community are very used to only > pursuing things when they reach [near-]consensus, simply because nearly every > biggish topic we discuss must first reach consensus. That's a very high > bar and it blocks many good changes (look at how many times we've > broached relaxing back compat policy...). This change does not require > consensus. It requires only a majority to pass, which it has > achieved. Yes, it's contentious, but a change this big will always be > contentious, and this is why Apache requires only majority for it to > pass. Mike
