Figures I'd screw it up. I meant to imply a minimum of three +1's, so 17.4
should read something like:
"17.4. At any time after seven days (168 hours) from the time a proposal is
submitted, if it has received at least three binding +1s, and a positive
super majority of binding votes cast, the proposal is accepted."
For reference, I put this revised version of the amendment in the sandbox
under amend/amendment.txt.
(http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-commons-sandb
ox/amend/amendment.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain) I'll remove it as
soon we get resolution one way or another.
Geir> Do we wish to require a current Commons committer as a 'champion'?
I don't think so. The requirement for three *binding* +1 votes already
implies support from the Commons community, right?
Geir> Of course I am game- however, I got lost in the 17.3->17.5.1
Geir> How about just requiring 75% (rounded up) of committer
Geir> votes cast during the voting window with a minimum
Geir> of 3 +1 votes.
That's basically what I'm trying to say, except that the "voting window"
only applies to the first -1.
Sorry if my attempt at formalism is confusing. What I'm trying to say is:
* Three +1's and no -1's will do it
* If there are any -1's, then a super-majority of the committer votes is
required.
The reason I introduced a time frame at all is to work around an odd
situation that would seem to apply to most of the Apache voting rules. The
rules state that with three +1s and no -1s, a vote passes. But then the
first three votes could be +1, we could commit the action, and then four -1s
crop up. Has the resolution passed? What I'm trying to do is put in a
timeframe during which one must submit the first -1.
So what's up guys? Are Geir and I the only ones that care we're in
violation of our own charter? Are we mis-reading the charter as it stands?
- Rod
