Sorry, bad sight on my side. Anyway, to consider all of those -1's as binding, we would need an explanation. The voting email explicitly asks for that.
2016-04-28 14:05 GMT+02:00 Manfred Baedke <[email protected]>: > Oliver voted +1 for oak-segment-tar. :) > > > On 4/28/2016 1:43 PM, Francesco Mari wrote: > >> Hi Oliver, >> >> If I understand your mail correctly, you gave a -1 to every proposed >> option. Can you be a little bit more constructive about your approach, or >> explain the message that is evidently hidden in your email? >> >> Regards, >> >> Francesco >> >> 2016-04-28 11:43 GMT+02:00 Oliver Lietz <[email protected]>: >> >> On Monday 25 April 2016 16:46:45 Michael Dürig wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> There is a couple of names that came up in the discussion [1]: >>>> >>>> oak-local-store >>>> oak-segment-file >>>> oak-embedded-store >>>> oak-segment-store >>>> oak-segment-tar >>>> oak-segment-next >>>> >>>> Please vote which of the above six options you would like to see as the >>>> final name for oak-segment-next [2]: >>>> >>>> Put +1 next to those names that you favour, put -1 to veto names and >>>> remove the remaining names. Please justify any veto as otherwise it is >>>> non binding. >>>> >>>> The name with the most +1 votes and without any -1 vote will be chosen. >>>> >>> oak-local-store -1 >>> oak-segment-file -1 >>> oak-embedded-store -1 >>> oak-segment-store -1 >>> oak-segment-tar +1 >>> oak-segment-next -1 >>> >>> Regards, >>> O. >>> >>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/ktk7szjxtucpqd2o >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4245 >>>> >>> >>> >
