Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney
lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote:
...Just to clear one thing up here, Ferdy was VOTE'd in for Gora PMC and
committership in January of this year. In the following thread [0] Chris
states that Ferdy was added to the resolution which was
Hi Everyone,
We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only
two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted
in favour of a +1.
Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum
of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty
On 23 April 2012 16:39, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only
two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted
in favour of a +1.
Based on the nature of the
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comments.
Best
Lewis
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hey Lewis,
FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
http://s.apache.org/49d
In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72
Oops thread correction that original one was held up in mod and
never delivered because I wasn't subscribed on user@. Here's
the one from dev@.
http://s.apache.org/mLZ
Cheers,
Chris
On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hey Lewis,
FYI my reply to you in context on
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth
is,
as the one that called the VOTE, you are
On Apr 23, 2012 3:20 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 2012 2:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...
In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by
say,
coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE
On Apr 23, 2012 2:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...
In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by
say,
coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE
immediately
after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected
The short answer is that you need to grow the number of active PMC members
(not sure why users is on a vote; they don't at all). You need three +1
votes to ensure that the release has been fully-reviewed. One or two PMC
Members cannot make a release in the name of the ASF. It takes a minimum of
Huh? A release is not lazy consensus. You need three +1 votes.
On Apr 23, 2012 11:52 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hey Lewis,
FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
http://s.apache.org/49d
In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at
Excellent, so it looks to me like either addressing Ferdy's concerns or
getting a +1 from another PMC member is all you need.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Apr 23, 2012 8:38 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ross,
On Mon, Apr 23,
Yeah I wasn't saying that there was lazy consensus. I said, if you have
2 +1 VOTES, and you need a 3rd, then you don't have to call the VOTE
closed at that point just b/c 72 hours passed. That you can just say that
the VOTE is open *for at least* 72 hours, and then just leave it open if
you don't
12 matches
Mail list logo
