My vote remains the same: (binding) (3) Rename branch-0.23 to branch-2, keep branch-0.22 as-is. (2) Rename branch-0.23 to branch-3, keep branch-0.22 as-is i.e. leave a hole. (1) Rename branch-0.22 to branch-2, rename branch-0.23 to branch-3. (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. (5) Do nothing, keep branch-0.22 and branch-0.23 as-is.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Arun C Murthy <a...@hortonworks.com> 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 3. 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. > > My vote is 3, 4, 2, 1, 5 in order (binding). > > The vote will run the normal 7 days. > > thanks, > Arun > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
