"Waldhoff, Rodney" wrote:
>
>
> PS: Do we want to re-consider the 75% rule?
No - it will be very effective in keeping the jar, docs and framework
debates to a minimum, because we won't have anything to release. It
will also solve that pesky 'global version' issue Craig was alluding to,
since we will have nothing to bundle.
:)
Seriously, we could resort to an 'alternate interpretation' of the 75%
rule, and make it 75% of the people who voted....
So if you are a committer and don't care, don't vote.
We might want to make it a minimum of say a net of 3 +1's, i.e. 3 more
+1's than -1's or something.
> What happens when we get dozens
> of committers? I don't think that's unreasonable given our charter, but
> leads to a lot of votes needed to do anything.
Not really - the only voting we are required to do as Commons committers
is the vote to decide to make a proposal a commons component.
> Like a lot of people, I'm
> loathe to vote on something I haven't look at closely, but I don't have time
> to look at *everything* closely.
Me too. That's why the 3/4ths of those that care might be a good 'out'.
> BeanUtils
> ---------
> Craig
> Geir
> Remy
> Costin
> David [+0.5, that counts the same as a full +1, right?]
> Rodney [as of this message]
> Morgan [He voted as I was writing this]
>
> Cactus (J2EEUnit)
> -----------------
> [Vincent]?
> Craig
> Geir
> Rodney
>
> Collections
> -----------
> Rodney
>
> Pool
> ----
> Rodney
> Costin
> Morgan
>
> DBCP
> ----
> Rodney
I'll soon
review and vote on those that I haven't yet.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
