gonna end up with a stackoverflow on recursive votes here On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote:
> -0 on voting on whether we need a vote. > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > >> I'm fine without a vote. (are we voting on wether we need a vote?) >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >>> I think a VOTE is over-thinking it, and is rarely used, but, can't hurt. >>> Nah, anyone can call a vote. This really isn't that formal. We just want to >>> declare and document consensus. >>> >>> I think SPIP is just a remix of existing process anyway, and don't think >>> it will actually do much anyway, which is why I am sanguine about the whole >>> thing. >>> >>> To bring this to a conclusion, I will just put the contents of the doc >>> in an email tomorrow for a VOTE. Raise any objections now. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM Cody Koeninger <c...@koeninger.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I started this idea as a fork with a merge-able change to docs. >>>> Reynold moved it to his google doc, and has suggested during this >>>> email thread that a vote should occur. >>>> If a vote needs to occur, I can't see anything on >>>> http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html suggesting that I can call >>>> for a vote, which is why I'm asking PMC members to do it since they're >>>> the ones who would vote anyway. >>>> Now Sean is saying this is a code/doc change that can just be reviewed >>>> and merged as usual...which is what I tried to do to begin with. >>>> >>>> The fact that you haven't agreed on a process to agree on your process >>>> is, I think, an indication that the process really does need >>>> improvement ;) >>>> >>>> >> >
