----- Original Message ----- From: "Berin Lautenbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:05 PM Subject: Committer Voting [Was: Revisions to xml.apache.org charter]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Neil Graham wrote: > > | Interesting. Yet I can't check out jakarta-struts, for example, > except via > | anoncvs. Can anyone explain this? It might be fun to test this, except > | that it might somehow succeed. :) > > I had cause to try this out recently, and I found I could check out > xml-xalan (using my Apache ID, not anoncvs), but I couldn't update it. > > Got a message about not enough Karma :>. As I understand it, there is > some work that has been done to give people in a project read access to > all sub-projects, but only write access to specific ones. > > | The trouble is that, if we're writing rules about how subprojects should > | work, I'm not sure "pretty much knowing" is a high enough bar. What we're > | basically saying here is that sometimes committers can be safely ignored; > | some day, some disagreement may arise about that, where perceptions might > | differ. An edge case perhaps, but one it would seem best to prepare > for by > | making things as objective and as clear as possible. > > At the moment we are all assuming that an x/y majority means that y > represents the entire population of voters (almost an Australian style > democracy, where we are required to vote by law :>). Wouldn't it be > better to have y to represent the total number of people who decide to > vote on a given issue in a given time period? That's basically 3 +1's and no -1's. The problem is with issues where we really ought to have high voter turnout.... > It's also in line with the incubator voting document that Ted referenced > in another e-mail. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
