geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Mon, 26 Jun 2006 05:02:08 GMT
Gianny Damour wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Let's take this as an example. As we haven't discussed it yet, it
>>> seems to me that such a change requires 3x+1 from PMC members. So,
>>> only when this vote (it should possibly be a separate vote with
>>> 72-hour vote period to bring more attention) passes committers who are
>>> not PMC members have their +1 binding. Am I correct?
>>>   
>>
>> No.  Only PMC votes are binding.  There is only an issue here
>> because the PMC != committers.  I think the most desirable
>> solution is PMC === committers, but other people on the PMC
>> disagree.
>>  
>>
> Indeed, I disagree and I would like have this rule relaxed in the case 
> of RTC votes.
>
> I think that one of the main goals of RTC is to encourage discussion 
> of code changes and have a more collaborative development process. I 
> do not see how this restriction (only PMC votes are binding) promotes 
> further collaborative development.
>
> Having said that, this change to RTC is a very nice change as it is 
> now easier to follow what people are working on and more people can 
> get involved and contribute.
>
> Ken, could you please tell us if it is possible to relax the RTC rule? 
> If this is not possible, then is it possible to relax the 
> pre-requisites to be able to vote? For instance, I had a look to David 
> J. JACC patch; I am fine with it; however, I have not applied and 
> tested it; so, I cannot vote.

I've finally gotten through my email pile.  Did Ken ever reply to this 
email?


Regards,
Alan



Mime
View raw message