On 2/28/2012 5:47 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 29 Feb 2012, at 12:21 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> After two months, firehose still didn't obtain another +1, so the vote to >> incorporate firehose into trunk stands at 3 +1's, 1 -1, and therefore >> failed the vote for inclusion in trunk. > > I count 4 +1s on the dev@httpd list: > > minfrin, issac, sctemme, jim
For firehose you called a vote for a *** subproject *** Subject: Proposal: adoption of mod_firehose subproject Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:19:16 +0200 Message-Id: <c9f95294-1225-49a8-8fe8-488ad8a61...@sharp.fm> These four people voted to adopt a subproject. Nobody within that thread suggested it become a module. I emailed some supportive questions seeking more detail, as I have been supportive of all subprojects to gain attention to code. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. You then ninja'ed the thread on the 17th after the voting that this had been a vote to add a module. Such behavior isn't becoming of a collaborator. I then voted -1 due to your bait and switch and asked for who voted to adopt firehose as a module? ... as I did not trust that the committers had really consented to maintaining this code in core, especially since it was only accepted on the slimmest of margin as a standalone subproject. Jim responded that his was a vote for a module or a subproject, no difference. Sander did not clarify after 12/13, and did not consent to a module. Issac did not clarify after 12/13, and did not consent to a module. "Based on the support expressed, and the expressed preference that the module be part of httpd, I have updated the documentation for both mod_firehose and firehose and will commit them to trunk shortly." There was no said support in that thread for mod_firehose in trunk. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. Veto stands, calling your vote fundamentally invalid, and since you are failing to read my posts, is now unconditional. Revert this yourself to a subproject before I simply revert this into void.
