My sincere apologies. I messed up on option (4) - it should read: > (4) If security is fixed in branch-0.22 within a short time-frame i.e. 2 > months then we get option 1, else we get option 3. Effectively postpone > discussion by 2 months, start a timer now.
instead of > (4) If security is fixed in branch-0.22 within a short time-frame i.e. 2 > months then we get option 1, else we get option 2. Effectively postpone > discussion by 2 months, start a timer now. Let me restart the vote. Arun On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > We've discussed several options: > > (1) Rename branch-0.22 to branch-2, rename branch-0.23 to branch-3. > (2) Rename branch-0.23 to branch-3, keep branch-0.22 as-is i.e. leave a hole. > (3) Rename branch-0.23 to branch-2, keep branch-0.22 as-is. > (4) If security is fixed in branch-0.22 within a short time-frame i.e. 2 > months then we get option 1, else we get option 2. Effectively postpone > discussion by 2 months, start a timer now. > (5) Do nothing, keep branch-0.22 and branch-0.23 as-is. > > Let's do a STV [1] to get reach consensus. > > Please vote by listing the options above in order of your preferences. > > thanks, > Arun > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote > -- Arun C. Murthy Hortonworks Inc. http://hortonworks.com/
