Mark Hindess wrote:
> On 15 May 2006 at 13:13, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Are you kidding?
>
> Well, it was just a question. The "Personally ..." statement was just
> my opinion based on my (naive) assumptions about the voting process.
:)
>
> I guess I'm just a pedant who likes to understand these thing, even
> when they don't matter, so there are no misunderstandings, when it does
> matter - if it was a deciding vote, for example.
True. BTW, what you said about "no matter who posts it" was 100% right on.
That said, if we're in a position where there's a single tiebreaker
vote, in most cases where we'd be voting, IMO we have a problem. (I
don't like contentious votes.. they aren't fun, and I'm doing this
because it's fun...)
>
>> IMO, any vote that makes it in before the votes are counted should
>> count. The point of the 3 day (or n-day) time limit is to establish
>> the minimum amount of time (or give someone a chance to offer an
>> alternative) so that no one will be surprised.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> I'm interested in other opinions, though...
>
> Me too. Which is why I asked.
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
Lets see what others say...
I don't mind the slop in that direction because it lets people get their
vote in if they accidentally forgot (like I did...)
OTOH, if people feel strongly and want to adopt a mode where we have a
listed expiration date/time, I'm happy for that too... I can usually
follow directions :)
geir
> -Mark.
>
>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>>> On 15 May 2006 at 6:19, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> 10 +1 votes, no others.
>>> Excellent ... but ...
>>>
>>> The vote was supposed to run for 3 days. Should a vote submitted (long)
>>> after this time has elapsed still be counted? Personally, I don't think
>>> it should - no matter who posts it. ;-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>> Someone want to re-assign to themselves and bring this in?
>>>>
>>>> Please make sure that the initial commit is *identical* to what was
>>>> contributed, and then do any tweaks, fixes, moves etc from there.
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>> I have received the ACQs and the BCC for Harmony-199 in paper form and
>>>>> have reviewed them, so I can assert that the critical provenance
>>>>> paperwork is in order. It is not in SVN yet, but I wanted to get this
>>>>> vote going at the same time as the other contributions from ITC.
>>>>> I will get scanned and in SVN ASAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the contribution from ITC. This is just a vote to accept or
>>>>> reject the codebase. What we do with the codebase - what parts and
how
>>>>> we integrate - is up for discussion on the -dev list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote to accept or reject this codebase into the Apache Harmony
>>>>> class library :
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] + 1 Accept
>>>>> [ ] -1 Reject (provide reason below
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets let this run 3 days unless a) someone states they need more time
or
>>>>> b) we get all committer votes before then.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
|