On Jan 16, 2008 6:28 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2008 6:24 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin Cooper wrote: > > >> That's a fair question, but I have an answer for it. > > > > > > Of course you do. If you didn't, I'd think you'd gone on vacation or > > > something. ;-) > > > > :) > > > > > So you're saying that if a non-committer thinks a release looks OK, a +1 > > > says just that and means nothing more, > > > > Yes. > > > > > whereas if a committer thinks it > > > looks OK, they can't vote the same way unless they're committing to > > > support > > > it, and therefore cannot contribute to the binding vote count required > > > for a > > > release. > > > > Yes. > > > > > But why would the non-committer vote in such an inconsistent way? > > > Surely the appropriate thing to do would be to vote +0, which is what the > > > committer would have to do in order to indicate that they thought the > > > release looked OK but were not in a position to support it. > > > > No, because that would also imply that the non-binding +1 has the same > > implied willingness to support (because otherwise there would be no > > difference between 0 and +1), and I contend that *NO* non-binding vote > > *EVER* carries that implication, as a binding vote does. Binding and > > non-binding votes cannot be equated in any way other than the statement > > about the fitness of the release, otherwise there would be no reason to > > differentiate binding from non-binding votes in the first place. Any > > meaning above and beyond fitness of release is the sole pervue of the > > binding votes and voters. > > > > > In any case, I'm going to sign out of this discussion now, as I have > > > enough > > > to do keeping up with my day job, and don't feel the need to further > > > defend > > > my right to vote +1 as I feel appropriate. > > > > That's cool Martin, I'm bowing out now too. You've made your position > > clear, and anyone can read it and make up their own mind about it. I'm > > glad you got the chance to "defend your right", as you see it. > > For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes > whoever they come from.
+1 The binding/non-binding distinction is pretty much just for legal and anti-jerk reasons in my book. Shouldn't be used to divide the community. Really, when managing a release, i consider a non-binding -1 (from a non-jerk, of course) as much of a showstopper as a binding -1, why treat +1 differently? Doesn't seem like the Apache way to me. > Niall > > > > Martin Cooper > > > > Frank > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
