Scott Gray wrote: > On 18/01/2013, at 9:10 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> On 01/17/2013 01:18 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: >>> >>>> think Adam's point was that someone could synthesize a vote from you (or, >>>> more importantly a vote from a mostly dormant member >>>> like Adam) and get something to pass. Since, in practice, this kind of >>>> thing doesn't ever seem to happen its probably not >>>> worth worrying about but his point is still cogent. >>> >>> Ok, thanks for the explanation Ean. >> >> Not just that, but there was no weekend timeframe available for this >> voting period. Other people who are more active may only work on >> ofbiz during the weekend, so you need to allow them time to become >> aware of such a vote. > > You could always just consider using some mail rules to prioritize voting > threads so you see them a bit earlier. Personally I > just spend the 5 seconds/day it takes to quickly scan the recent subject > lines for anything of interest.
Exactly my thoughts, just that I don't use prioritisation, anyway those days it's not needed, there is really a low traffic on dev ML > I think the risk of fake votes is very low, the only votes of relevance are > those required to cross the threshold of +3 or > whatever it takes for a vote to be rejected. There's always 3 PMC members > around to give the green light and any negative votes > would involve a fair amount of follow up discussion should they cause the > motion to fail to pass. Lets save any additional > bureaucracy for when there's an actual need. Agreed, less paper work, happier PMC members Jacques > Regards > Scott
