geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Geronimo Development Process
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:50:22 GMT

On Sep 12, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> 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...

No, it's my bad.  I didn't get my feedback into the SUMMARY.  Option  
3 is a fine starting place and I think it's AOK to evolve a group  
sense of where we'd like to encourage (not require) the use of RTC w/  
lazy consensus as one possible means to communicate change (the  
documentation guidelines are also fine).

-David


Mime
View raw message