cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@digitalinsight.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE RESULTS] Make ProcessingException extend CascadingRunti meException
Date Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:55:22 GMT
I don't believe all apache projects are required to follow those voting
procedures.  However, I can't think of a good reason why not to.  If someone
is trusted enough to be a committer I would hope they would have the common
sense to use their veto power judiciously.

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Cei [mailto:u.cei@cbim.it] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:23 AM
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULTS] Make ProcessingException extend
CascadingRuntimeException

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ugo Cei wrote:
> 
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/learn/voting.html
> 

Hmmm...

"Under normal (non-lazy consensus) conditions, the proposal requires 
three positive votes and no negative ones in order to pass; [...]
For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but 
-1 votes are vetos  and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers 
withdraw their -1 votes."

Doesn't this apply to this vote?

	Ugo

Mime
View raw message