+1 to both :) At least now everyone knows what to expect :) --- Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so > I am calling for a vote between the two following options: > > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas: > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. > Existing committers can nominate new committers by > sending a note to the dev mailing list. > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week. > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list. > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new > committers. > > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley: > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at > any time. The proposing committer generally lists > their contributions and why they should be made a > committer. > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer. > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original) > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html > > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious. > > My vote: > Option #1: > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one > > Option #2: > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process >
===== Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
