Mark Hindess wrote:
On 15 May 2006 at 13:13, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you kidding?
Well, it was just a question. The "Personally ..." statement was just
my opinion based on my (naive) assumptions about the voting process.
:)
I guess I'm just a pedant who likes to understand these thing, even
when they don't matter, so there are no misunderstandings, when it does
matter - if it was a deciding vote, for example.
True. BTW, what you said about "no matter who posts it" was 100% right on.
That said, if we're in a position where there's a single tiebreaker
vote, in most cases where we'd be voting, IMO we have a problem. (I
don't like contentious votes.. they aren't fun, and I'm doing this
because it's fun...)
IMO, any vote that makes it in before the votes are counted should
count. The point of the 3 day (or n-day) time limit is to establish
the minimum amount of time (or give someone a chance to offer an
alternative) so that no one will be surprised.
Fair enough.
I'm interested in other opinions, though...
Me too. Which is why I asked.
Thanks for the explanation.
Lets see what others say...
I don't mind the slop in that direction because it lets people get their
vote in if they accidentally forgot (like I did...)
OTOH, if people feel strongly and want to adopt a mode where we have a
listed expiration date/time, I'm happy for that too... I can usually
follow directions :)
geir
-Mark.
Mark Hindess wrote:
On 15 May 2006 at 6:19, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
10 +1 votes, no others.
Excellent ... but ...
The vote was supposed to run for 3 days. Should a vote submitted (long)
after this time has elapsed still be counted? Personally, I don't think
it should - no matter who posts it. ;-)
Regards,
Mark.
Someone want to re-assign to themselves and bring this in?
Please make sure that the initial commit is *identical* to what was
contributed, and then do any tweaks, fixes, moves etc from there.
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
I have received the ACQs and the BCC for Harmony-199 in paper form and
have reviewed them, so I can assert that the critical provenance
paperwork is in order. It is not in SVN yet, but I wanted to get this
vote going at the same time as the other contributions from ITC.
I will get scanned and in SVN ASAP.
This is the contribution from ITC. This is just a vote to accept or
reject the codebase. What we do with the codebase - what parts and how
we integrate - is up for discussion on the -dev list.
Please vote to accept or reject this codebase into the Apache Harmony
class library :
[ ] + 1 Accept
[ ] -1 Reject (provide reason below
Lets let this run 3 days unless a) someone states they need more time or
b) we get all committer votes before then.
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
