[ ] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
as well as the problems which started this whole
thing.
Just to be sure
2007/9/26, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'd like to call a vote on acceptance of the above methodology,
> > as crafted and fine-tuned by Costin and myself. It is worthwhile
> > to note that, really, these are the typical ASF methods, but
> > with some "grainy" aspects better defined. In essence, some
> > typical "niceties" are now mandated (changes, even in CTR, which
> > affect the API, must be brought up first to gauge community
> > approval).
> >
> > [ ] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns
> > as well as the problems which started this whole
> > thing.
> > [ ] 0. Whatever.
> > [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons:
> >
> > The vote will run for 96 hours instead of the normal 72 because of
> > the weekend. Only binding votes will be counted, but non-binding
> > votes will be used to address wider concern/acceptance of
> > the proposal.
> >
>
> Looks like the 96 hours are up, and the tally is:
>
> +1: jim, yoav, tim, remy, costin, filip, mark, mladen,
> jean-frederic, rainer
>
> Not Sure: Peter followed up: "I agree with Remy: We must find a
> process
> that really work normally quick and can handle
> conflicts fair." Henri +1'ed Peter's post. So I am
> not sure if Peter actually cast a vote or simply made
> a comment and I'm not sure if Henri +1'ed the proposal
> or Peter's comment or both.
> -1: null set
>
> As such, the vote passes!!
>
> We can now give ourselves a pat on the back for resolving this
> and start implementing the changes we approved...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
