Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:30:14 +1000
From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Voting policies
Message-ID: <20060810053014.GB14268@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
References: <44D9EF7A.1000508@apache.org> <44D9F2AE.1030304@mobilebox.pl>
 <bea1c48ceb84e6ef59597a92cf56e2af@wrinkledog.com>
 <f767f0600608091250l85eb9e2rf2744adb342e6e9f@mail.gmail.com>
 <44DA66D3.6090500@dslextreme.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44DA66D3.6090500@dslextreme.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

Ralph Goers wrote:
> Now we are getting nit-picky. This page lists three categories; 
> procedural, code modification and package releases. Quite frankly, I 
> don't think this vote has much to do with any of these because:
> a) procedural to me is a process - such as switching from ant to maven. 
> One could argue from a warped point of view that changing a dependency 
> fits in this category.
> b) code modification - no code is actually being modified by changing a 
> dependency. (At least yet).

This "b" is the closest category, i reckon.

> c) package releases - well, it is pretty obvious that this doesn't fit.
> 
> So to be honest, I think this is something the PMC has to decide which 
> process to follow.

Yes. We need guidelines so that we can handle each
situation without needing to make up ad hoc policies.

> Having said that, I'd probably lean toward the more restrictive view 
> just to be fair.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >
> >Which is the case, quoting http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html:
> >
> >"Votes on Code Modification
> >
> >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."

I reckon that Joerg did the perfect thing. He felt strongly
enough to vote -1, and then provided an alternative.

It takes a lot of guts to vote -1 ... thanks.

If we think he is wrong then challenge his veto.
Otherwise go back to the drawing board and come up with
an alternative proposal to vote on.

-David