geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Geronimo Development Process
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:06:34 GMT

On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:26 AM, David Blevins wrote:

>
> On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> [X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
>>>
>>> And to clarify, my proposal was actual for CTR w/optional RTC  
>>> with Lazy Consensus, where we as a community agree RTC with Lazy  
>>> Consensus is encouraged in the following situations:
>>>
>>> On Aug 23, 2006, at 1:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>> I'm inclined to say "at your discretion" where the following are  
>>>> encouraged:
>>>>  - Significant new functionality
>>>>  - Significant changes
>>>>  - Patches from Contributors
>>>>  - Borderline "fixes" to a stable branch
>>>
>>> This is still my preferred verbiage.
>>
>> Since this is a VOTE thread I think the vote needs to be  
>> unqualified.  So the +1 is for 3 as stated or it should be a -1  
>> with qualifications.  Otherwise the vote gets very hard to tally.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear.  My vote is for 3 without qualifications.   
> Was simply adding (unsuccessfully) that my proposal didn't make it  
> into the list of options.

David, Apologies if I failed to capture the proposal, properly. Was  
hoping the SUMMARY thread would iron out any mis-interpretations... I  
haven't re-read the thread, however my recollection was that the  
process wasn't being interpreted as discretionary... While there may  
have been a fuzzy line on when CTR or RTC w/ lazy consensus would be  
applied, it seemed that there would be cases where RTC w/ lazy  
consensus was expected/required...

--kevan

Mime
View raw message