Mark, Unfortunately, quorum is 5 and there were 4 with only 3 voting. Unfortunately, I had to leave the meeting before the vote was taken. Had I voted it would have been a tie vote which would have required the chair to cast the still quorum lacking deciding vote. So as it stands I do not think that a precedent can be set as quorum was not met and might be a reason to appeal the case.
The question is whether or not the trove case is approved. If it can be considered approve then the question is whether or not the committee wants to try and set a precedence. I am a little hesitant to state that trove is approved especially with so much discussion still occurring. Although the opinion review by the ARC community at large is supposed to help clarify and commit to the precedent. Since it appears that the community is not ready to do so then the originating committee needs to rethink or discuss the topic. Thus I think that you are correct further discussion does seem to be in order and required. Thanks, John Mark Martin wrote: > > I was debating bringing a case to propose new stability communication > norms for particular classifications of projects (i.e. Java libraries). > Rather than debate the specifics of that case at this moment, I'd like > to determine if this would be prudent procedurally. I know the LSARC > intends to use trove as a precedent setting case, but I suspect a longer > discussion is warranted to solve the generic problem of: > > FOSS ports that have no stability expectations expressed in any form (or > do, but with a different taxonomy) > FOSS ports that have different user expectations for documentation. > (i.e. man vs. Xdoc) > > I'm basing this concern on the fact that there was no quorum during the > vote (does this matter?), and it still seems like there's a bit of > uncertainty in the opinion. > > Should I attempt this, or should I let the Trove case ride? > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org
