Not sure this is true. I actually abstained from voting on PUP-3 because I was somewhere between a +0 and a -0.
David On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > Having at least one +1 is not impartial approach just because the > developer who , as you said, found the time for the research and writing > down the proposal obviously will vote as +1 :) > > > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> This reminds me of the concept of a "Do-ocracy". >> >> If developers take the time to research and write up a proposal, they >> have "done". It seems completely reasonable to default to the opinion of >> the people that cared enough to do the work. If it isn't the right >> decision, then someone must actively block it, simple as that. >> >> I think the rule should be "PUP passes if we have at least one +1 and no >> -1s". >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev