"Tinny Ng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So depends on the type of "Action Items" this issue belongs to, it
> is either classified as consensus (i.e. no vetos) or majority vote
> (i.e. +1s > -1s). I think this "changeing include" issue either
> belongs to "Showstoppers" or "Product changes" category and thus
> should be subject to lazy consensus. Since we have limited number
> of committers and we initially opened this vote to all users, we can
> count all users' vote. If there is any veto, and if you disagree
> with the veto, you should lobby the person who cast the veto. Until
> all vetos are resolved, then we can move on from there.
Next time we feel a vote is required, I think that this should be
decided *before* the vote, yes? Then we can point out to people what
the significance of voting -1 really is, yes?
Ok. So my advice for proceeding is that Murray make all the necessary
changes to Xerces, and provide me with a working source tarball. I
will put it on the WWW site in the experimental/ section.
At that point, Murray can indicate *exactly* what people need to do
that is different from what they currently do, *and* they can download
it and test it.
Then we discuss it.
jas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
