On Tue, Jun 18, 2013, at 05:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler > <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > > For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress > > unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging > > to the community. > > No. That's not acceptable to me as an IPMC member. > > VOTEs are tied to specific language. > > Trivial conveniences do not justify corrupting the fundamental voting > mechanism. > > > If people want to adopt the inefficient process then fair enough, > > someone inform me they will veto the vote unless we revert the change. > > I'll comply with the rules if someone wants to insist. But this is a > > discussion and I believe it's a waste of time. > > So long no one contends that this sets a precedent, I would prefer that > we let > things slide this time.
Regardless of how trivial the change was, deciding whether or not the change is trivial requires a judgement, and each of us may make that judgement differently (surprising *are* making that judgement differently). That cannot be the basis of a vote - we need to know what we are voting on without each vote participant being expected to judge something as either weighty or trivial. It is so much simpler for everyone to follow the rules when something happens. The simplest thing is for us to accept that we are voting on the version of the proposal that was current at the time the vote was initiated. As I understand it, if the change was Sanjiva saying he won't claim the trademark, then that's great - he can say it here, or update the proposal doc or whatever, to reassure people, but the relevant document was essentially fixed at the time the vote was called, and substantive issues in it need to be handled in other ways. Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
