On 2/7/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> which also mentions that "On some issues, this vote is only binding if > the voter has tested the action on their own system(s)." I would > suggest that in terms of a vote on a GA release, this means that the > voter is using the bits in production ("eating our own dog food").Yes, well _suggesting_ that is fine; making it a requirement is not.
It wasn't my intention to make anything a requirement. Hey, since when does anyone listen to me? :) My main concern is that the people who are casting binding votes are also agreeing to support the release. I believe that an essential component of a "quality commensurate with a release to a general audience" are people who will available to support the release after it is marked GA. If a PMC member has essentially gone "emeritus" in terms of a particular release, then I would suggest that is better for that individual to abstain. Despite its name, the PMC is not a political body, but a working group, and we need to know which people in the group are ready, willing, and able to do the work. My suggestion would be that we adopt the habit of reminding people that "A binding vote not only states an opinion, but means that the voter is agreeing to help do the work." -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
