Voting is closed. Thanks for those who gave attention and voted.
0 clear positive (+1) votes
4 clear negative (-1) votes
Hence my proposal is rejected.
Other remarks:
- Dima's proposal ("grave" instead of "critical") is something to consider
if this proposal was accepted.
- Sorry to
-1
For the most part, because this proposed policy cannot be reflected in the
GitHub user interface:
The list of selectable labels in the drop down menu cannot depend on
whether it's an Issue or a PR.
Matthias
On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 10:45:03 PM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 1:45:03 AM UTC-5 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Hi,
Here I withdraw the early premature "giving up" on my recent proposal,
since afterwards there were some positive comments. Hence I open a voting
for
Proposal:
1. Do not use "blocker" label for Issues, as
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:49, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote:
>
> I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal
> before there has been a discussion.
>
>
> Sorry if it was not clear to you, but the
I see. Thanks.
- Marc
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:49 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote:
>
> I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal
> before there has been a discussion.
>
>
> Sorry if it was not
On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 8:35:24 AM UTC+9 Marc Culler wrote:
I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal
before there has been a discussion.
Sorry if it was not clear to you, but the discussion before this vote is
here:
I have a proposal: It should be forbidden to call for a vote on a proposal
before there has been a discussion.
Without a chair, it would be impossible for this group to follow Robert's
Rules of Order, even approximately. But the basic process should still be
the same. The rules are designed
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 4:46 PM William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon
> wrote:
>
>> -1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker.
>> For instance:
>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914
>> This issue, which regards the use of the
Le mercredi 28 février 2024 à 17:39:25 UTC+1, Eric Gourgoulhon a écrit :
-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker.
For instance:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914
This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been
detected by the CI framework. It
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon
wrote:
> -1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker.
> For instance:
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914
> This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been
> detected by the CI framework. It is a
-1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker.
For instance:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914
This issue, which regards the use of the notebook, could not have been
detected by the CI framework. It is a serious regression and definitely a
blocker IMHO: are we willing to
11 matches
Mail list logo
