Troy, I am not really sure what your point is. So you believe that: > I think the 'Known Risks' section in the proposal enumerates that > pretty clearly, so I won't repeat it.
... yet you raise an objection for somebody else who might think otherwise? Is that because you anticipate an objection and you want to prevent that by suggesting a solution that my prevent the objection to occur in the first place? > [...] My statements were meant to speak to > the folks who think otherwise, as a reasonable compromise (assuming > Bill's stance, and anyone who is quietly in agreement, is to not allow > it into the Incubator). Why not let the guys who have an objection speak for themselves? Regarding Bill's message, I didn't see him raising an objection, just making a valid point. Ate explained already both that it was addressed and the rationale for the wording in the proposal. > I don't think my vote counts for much, but I'm a +1. ;) Well, the vote is on now. If I misunderstood your intentions I am sorry, but they are not very clear. Cheers, Hadrian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
