Assuming you used 'spelunk: to explore unknown territory' you need to
explain this some more.
What was done wrong? How could we have done this better?
To me it was a clear and unambigous procedure to put into writing what
the individual preferences were.
Whe have had long discussions, with very subtle issues, which did not
bring us any further if we were going to drop one jdk or another.
I've used the model i practice in a lot of meetings, we discuss pros and
cons, give people time to form their definite position, and end with a vote.
Apart from the missing legal status, which is not important to me, what
can we do as a group to resolve the jdk issue?
Gr. Sim
On 11-02-11 03:51, Benson Margulies wrote:
Votes like this, which are a way to spelunk consensus, have no legal
status and no set procedure. If the PMC had decided to make this
decision by majority vote (which would have been extremely unwise, but
whatever) then it would only have been fair to announce the length of
the voting period at the outset and tally up at the end.
In the case at hand, I think you've learned what you set out to learn,
and this message is a more than adequate terminus to the process.
