[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > There are 97 people subscribed to the Axiom mailing list. > Please explain how you plan to garner 49 votes for anything.
It is quite OK to abstain. I'd suggest to * have no vote for trivial patches (fix typos, for example) or if nobody disagrees. * have a short voting period for small and medium size patches. Say, 24 or maybe 48 hours for the patch concerning the Taylor series powering. * have longer voting period for large and huge patches. Say one week, or maybe 10 days for voting on changing the build system to autotools, or to switch from autoconf to asdf. A vote is triggered by anybody on axiom-developer saying: stop, I'd like to vote. If somebody says that a patch breaks this or that, this would be discussed first. Sometimes it will be possible to agree whether this or that was broken before the patch and the patch only surfaced it, or whether this or that was ok, but the patch breaks it. Only if such an agreement is not found, a vote is necessary. Consensus remains most important, i.e., if a vote is not absolutely clear, it may be better simply to start a new branch and keep it in sync. subversion or svk should make that quite easy. (In any case, I'd like to reduce branching and merging to an entirely technical, not emotional issue.) Three remarks: 1) thanks for asking for clarification 2) interesting to know that there are already 97 subscribers. I would have guessed fifty. 3) I'm open to discuss any other democratic system. However, I would like to keep refereeing and voting two distinct processes. Peer review is a great thing, but it's not a substitute for democracy. Martin _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
