On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? > > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus. A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no" outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face. > But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in > the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation. That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with their vote to depart. > Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a mentor > called the vote and I respect their decision to do so. Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote? Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling". That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of disrespect for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of communities. It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and "bureaucracy" to pretend so. I'm fine stating all this nonsensical behavior in public. -g
