Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Oct 18, 2011 1:56 AM, "Rob Weir" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z has arrived. > > > > The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the modest adjustments that were made. > > > > On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered ratified, a sort of lazy consensus: > > < http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vjap7q3d2pefucc-v1m3+rpoxuo7...@mail.gmail.com%3e >. > > > > I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not the question. > >
This is fundamental to the process of lazy consensus. If an objection is not raised during discussion how can people consider the merit of that objection? There should be no discussion in a vote thread, all opinions should already have been heard. > > I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being denied an important ceremonial act on our part. > > On the contrary. Avoiding the need to vote is the most important part of consensus building in an Apache project. Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting stiff done. > > Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear, won't it? > > If there are no objections and the discussion has run it's course then one can assume lazy consensus has already been achieved. All that being said, this is a new community, calling the odd vote that is not necessary will not cause harm. Getting bogged down in endless process will, however cause delays and frustration. My post is about the longer term. > > Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There > were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go > ahead and implement the proposal. > +1 If Dennis really feels it is necessary to give a last chance for objection (it's good to be inclusive) simply state that we believe consensus has been reached. In the meantime, if I were a forum volunteer I'd be making my preparations already. The volunteers will be doing the work, the only person who can object now is someone implementing an alternative and no such person has been seen in all the time discussing. Ross
