The -1 thing is mentioned here <https://logging.apache.org/guidelines.html> regarding a -1 being a veto for anything consensus-related (generally anything to do with adding or removing committers/PMCs). I suppose in that context, a mailing list change probably falls under lazy majority, though whatever it is we're doing at Commons for lazy votes isn't on that page.
On 7 March 2017 at 22:59, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > +1 > > Note that generally a -1 is a veto only on code commits. On everything > else it just means you are against the proposal. However, we generally > strive for consensus so great weight is given to binding votes that are > opposed. > > Ralph > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is my +1. > > If this is the incorrect voting format and we need to do a 2/3 majority > instead, please veto this and let me know. This situation is not spelled > out in the bylaws. > > On 7 March 2017 at 22:20, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I may be missing some mailing lists considering I just subscribed to half >> of them less than five minutes ago. >> >> This is a vote to merge the various Apache Logging Services mailing >> lists. The proposal is to combine them as follows: >> >> log4j-dev@, log4php-dev@, log4net-dev@, log4cxx-dev@ -> >> d...@logging.apache.org >> log4j-user@, log4php-user@, log4net-user@, log4cxx-user@, general@ -> >> u...@logging.apache.org >> >> commits@ and private@ remain the same as before. >> >> The proposal would also suggest that the old emails become aliases for >> the combined email names so as not to lose any future emails. To >> distinguish between projects, a subject tag can be added such as: >> >> [java] >> [net] >> [cxx] >> [php] >> >> Though I wouldn't think such a tag is required, though it should help in >> gaining the attention of the appropriate audience. >> >> Voting: >> >> +1: Yes, combine the mailing lists! >> +0: Go ahead, don't care that much. >> -0: Don't like it, but not vetoing it. >> -1: No, don't do that! I have a better idea! >> >> This vote follows the same "lazy consensus" (at least 3 +1 binding, no >> -1/vetoes) we use for general releases and whatnot. The vote will be open >> for at least 72 hours. >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
