On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:26 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
And to clarify, my proposal was actual for CTR w/optional RTC
with Lazy Consensus, where we as a community agree RTC with Lazy
Consensus is encouraged in the following situations:
On Aug 23, 2006, at 1:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm inclined to say "at your discretion" where the following are
encouraged:
- Significant new functionality
- Significant changes
- Patches from Contributors
- Borderline "fixes" to a stable branch
This is still my preferred verbiage.
Since this is a VOTE thread I think the vote needs to be
unqualified. So the +1 is for 3 as stated or it should be a -1
with qualifications. Otherwise the vote gets very hard to tally.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. My vote is for 3 without qualifications.
Was simply adding (unsuccessfully) that my proposal didn't make it
into the list of options.
David, Apologies if I failed to capture the proposal, properly. Was
hoping the SUMMARY thread would iron out any mis-interpretations... I
haven't re-read the thread, however my recollection was that the
process wasn't being interpreted as discretionary... While there may
have been a fuzzy line on when CTR or RTC w/ lazy consensus would be
applied, it seemed that there would be cases where RTC w/ lazy
consensus was expected/required...
--kevan
