On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in effect overrule the > project - the "preference/opinion" had already previously been > gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to ask the broader > question of why we (IPMC) get binding votes on project matters. It > seems to me that the healthy thing to do is closer to the board model > where we trust projects to do the right thing, ask for an ack, and > then only challenge the project on the basis of a > legal/release/trademark/etc issue. > > If we tell the projects that you have to re-vote with the peanut > gallery, then the peanut gallery effect is predictable. Those votes, > for example, are because they don't *like* the new name personally, > not because there's any real problems with it. >
Nobody told them to re-vote in this situation. They took it upon themselves to ask the IPMC. If you ask for opinions from people, you're going to get them. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
