corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian C <>
Subject Re: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:30:18 GMT
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Peter Kelly <> wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2015, at 11:51 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
>> Abstentions are not to be discussed.  Abstentions are abstentions.  And why discuss
them in private?  The [VOTE] was done here.  There is no private@ business called for.  The
only ballot that requires an explanation is a -1.
> I was going to keep the discussion to private@, but since you prefer to have it in public,
I’ll continue it here.
> We, as a team of individuals voluntarily coming together to work on a project, can decide
what we want to discuss. Anyone can raise a topic on a mailing list. Whether or not you believe
a topic is appropriate is not the determining factor of whether it should be discussed; others
may consider it important.
> While votes may not be officially required from all PPMC members, I believe that anyone
who genuinely cares about a project and (barring absence or illness) is able to vote on such
an important matter as a first release should do so - particularly when they have raised issues
during the pre-vote period. I assumed given your interest in the points you raised in pre-vote,
that you had enough interest in the outcome to make an actual vote.
>> Furthermore, I take personal exception to my abstention in the [PRE-VOTE] being carried
forward, effectively, against my wishes, and reported anyhow when it is not applicable to
this [VOTE].   That is unacceptable.  Please do not do that again.
> Jan very explicitly stated that your abstention (which you made on the public list) was
*not* being carried forward, along with an explanation of the reason for this. Given that
Jan had mentioned in the announcement that any votes expressed in the pre-vote period would
be carried forward unless otherwise stated, I think this explanation was warranted.
> Again this is another really pointless procedural issue, which I’m sick of discussing.
> I’ve spent the whole weekend working on an implementation Hindley-Milner type inference
algorithm to assist with the static verification of transformations between different documents.
Every time I come onto the list I hope to see something about development and all I find is
more arguing about procedures. I think this is actively harmful to the project and we should
be focusing on getting stuff done, not wasting our time on trivia.

Hear! Hear!  ...

> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> PGP key: <>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)


Ian C

View raw message