Joe Schaefer wrote: > Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > >> - mod_perl.pm is now mod_perl2.pm >> >> - Apache2.pm no longer exists > > > Procedural question: how should we vote on > this stuff? At this point, I think we should > treat this proposal as just that, a proposal. > Any ideas about how, and when, we should do > the actual voting?
well, I had expected a huge firefight today, which we're just not seeing, which is great. given that, the way I would proceed would be - first, assume lazy consensus if nobody hollers with something new that we haven't already heard and discussed ad nauseum - if there is a new issue, discuss and come to a resolution of typical +1s or whatnot. - if we come to a consensus, either lazy or otherwise, merge to trunk and roll a new release candidate. I would expect that, barring any new developments, we should be able to roll a candidate by monday at the latest. that is, everyone listen up: now is the time to speak up and be heard. > And how should vetos be > treated? Since it's an API change we're talking > about, how should vetoes be handled? roy's suggestion on board@ was that this (and other similar namespace issues) should be non-veto type votes, and I think that's wise in this circumstance, and for a few reasons. first, I've never liked vetos, since they carry with them a type of dominance that mod_perl has never been about. second, I think we just can't veto this issue - it needs to be resolved and there are people on all sides with the ability to bring the issue to a halt with veto power. --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
