Oops, vote's closed -- should have read the whole thread first :)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:23:48PM +0000, David Blevins wrote:
> +1 #Option 2
>
> -David
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:21:21AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
> > I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
> >
> > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> > Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> > sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> > committers.
> >
> > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> > any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> > their contributions and why they should be made a
> > committer.
> > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
> >
> > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's
> > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
> >
> > My vote:
> > Option #1:
> > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
> >
> > Option #2:
> > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
|