Benson Margulies wrote: > Here's another +1. Thank you Benson.
Next step is to call a [VOTE] on [email protected]. I'll do that. Paolo > > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 27/03/12 17:07, Paolo Castagna wrote: >> >>> Robert Vesse wrote: >>> >>>> I would release now as we have several more rounds of emails and votes >>>> to get through before Jena actually gets to graduate, namely: >>>> >>>> - Proposed Resolution Discussion on [email protected] >>>> - Resolution vote on [email protected] >>>> - Board Meeting (which is third monday of month so if we time everything >>>> nicely we may get graduation approved by end of April) >>>> >>> Hi Rob >>> >>> We currently have two +1 from committers, vote has closed. >>> I think it is possible to run the [VOTE] for longer an wait to >>> see if another vote comes (if it is necessary) before sending >>> the [VOTE] on [email protected]. But, I am not sure about this. >>> >>> I assumed my [VOTE] was implicit, but I guess it is a wrong >>> assumption, so I explicitly voted now (but after the deadline). >>> Is such vote valid? >>> >> Two +1's so far. >> >> Is this vote really closed? I don't see a CLOSED message. The deadline >> is really just the earliest time when you can declare a RESULT and close it >> with a positive outcome because you have then timed out on any -1's. >> Voting after the named deadline is all too common. >> >> What do you want to do? Having said it's closed in this message, without >> a message tagged as such, leaves it in an uncertain state. Time to >> collapse that wave function. >> >> Andy >> >> >>> Will the [VOTE] for LARQ be the last [VOTE] for a release of a >>> module before sending the [VOTE] for graduation or we need/want >>> to release SDB as well before that? >>> >>> Paolo >>> >
