On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote: > -1 (unbinding) > > because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of > relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote, > so to speak
I'll admit, I'm often "lazy" when it came to consensus. However, having read this, and the thread that followed, I think it's important to remember that the way the vote is formulated by whomever opens the thread is not the same as what members of the PMC vote on. Having recently opened a vote on ConCom that was somewhat unclear, it's even more obvious to me that an ambiguous call from a PMC chair does not necessarily lead to an ambiguous result of that vote :-) I don't want to see this vote derailled because of potential confusion over who was voting to close women@ and who was voting for an auto-responder. In case anyone was unclear, I'm +1 on rolling women@ into d...@community as described, including an auto-responder :-) The reality is that women@ hasn't had a post from a woman in a very long time. There are definitely still issues facing women at Apache, and simultaneously, progress has definitely been made. But I think now that we have ComDev, we should try to bring things under that umbrella, and not get hung up on dots and crosses when there are genuine problems to deal with. Noirin
