This vote passed +4 to -3 19 days ago, but was missed. I am updating the website now to make these changes.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > That leaves me conflicted. I have a substantial dislike for doing things a > way solely because that's how they have been. > > I can see the value in keeping things similar for those who interact, but > how much is that? I'm not sure how much confusion there will be should > these actions happen if we're providing the clarity on the vote type at the > start of the vote, which they can reference against our bylaws when they > see it's a different type then what they expected. > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I can accept those reasons for new persons in charge. What about vetoed >>> code and adding a new codebase? I can see the giving up control as a reason >>> to escalate things to Consensus from Majority, but I'm not seeing the >>> reason for these 2. >>> >>> >>> >> As Benson mentioned, vetoes on code are an artifact of how Apache has >> grown up. With code changes it's presumed there is a readily defined >> standard of "correctness" and vetoes are supposed to be limited to >> violations of such correctness. >> >> I happen to disagree with this, and would prefer that those things also >> fail over to Majority. However, I prefer keeping in line with ASF norms >> more so, because it makes it easier for those already familiar with other >> ASF groups to interact with us. >> >> -Sean >> > >
