Oops, vote's closed -- should have read the whole thread first :)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:23:48PM +0000, David Blevins wrote: > +1 #Option 2 > > -David > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:21:21AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes 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
