My vote: 3, 2, 4, 1, 5 In order of preference (binding)
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:15 PM, sanjay Radia <san...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > My binding vote: > > (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. > (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. > > > > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 6:06 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 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 >> >
