"Waldhoff, Rodney" wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Is it easy to remove a directory? (If not, we should limit directory
creation for one-offs else sandbox will get cluttered with junk..)
> 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?
It should :)
> 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.
Yep. I don't know if we want to codify the following, but what if
someone is off on vacation or something ?
> 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?
To be honest, I am not losing sleep over violating the letter of the
law, as I think we are well within the spirit as well as the spirit of
Jakarta.
But this *is* something we should resolve.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
