On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:30:22PM -0700, Darin McBride wrote:
> (In fact, if I remember, I'd propose the same rule of thumb for voting here
> in
> general - rather than making it a hard-and-fast 72hr wait, I'd suggest in
> general, using an async communication method such as email, that the
On Tuesday November 8 2016 9:05:30 PM Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:42:38PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> > Here's an idea. In the spirit of your proposal, how about when the
> > discussion seems to be over and it seems time to vote, either Matt
> > or Peter would propose that
On 2016-11-08 1:05 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:42:38PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
Here's an idea. In the spirit of your proposal, how about when the
discussion seems to be over and it seems time to vote, either Matt
or Peter would propose that a vote occurs, with the
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:42:38PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Here's an idea. In the spirit of your proposal, how about when the
> discussion seems to be over and it seems time to vote, either Matt
> or Peter would propose that a vote occurs, with the VOTE email etc,
> and then the other one
On 2016-11-07 1:38 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
Since, as Andy Beverley pointed out, a straight A/B vote is the most
effective way to provide a clear resolution, please do add comments and
thoughts to my proposal (and do the same for riba once he's able to figure
out his), but there's no point doing
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 21:38:13 Matt S Trout wrote:
> Once we've seen and discussed both, *then* we can call the final vote.
Thanks MST, that makes much more sense, much appreciated.
___
List:
Since, as Andy Beverley pointed out, a straight A/B vote is the most
effective way to provide a clear resolution, please do add comments and
thoughts to my proposal (and do the same for riba once he's able to figure
out his), but there's no point doing +1/-1 as yet.
Once we've seen and discussed