Message-ID: <37333102.43730DED@Golux.Com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 14:29:22 -0400
From: Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
Organization: The Apache Group
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: apr_ v.s. ap_
References: <19990506192648.13609.qmail@zap.ne.mediaone.net>
 <3732FDC0.260D01EA@Golux.Com> <87hfpohp62.fsf@zap.ne.mediaone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Ben Hyde wrote:
> 
> > > Summary: ap_ over apr_ by 4 votes to 3, or 6 to 4 depending
> > > on how you count.  - ben
> 
>              This would not have changed the outcome, unless
> of course I made other mistakes as well.

How not?  Changing 4-3 to 4-4 isn't significant?

> This sounds like a motion to reconsider, for example:
> <http://www.wstandy.com/boosters/docs/rulesord/reconsider.htm>
> 
> I'm not, today, a stickler for the details of these kinds of rules,
> but it would seem approprate to get "a member who voted with the
> prevailing side" to agree that this is a useful exercise, presumably
> because we need "to correct a hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action,
> or to take into account added information or a changed situation that
> has developed since the taking of the vote."

Since I wasn't on the winning side, if we suddenly switch to these
rules I can't make such a motion.  However, those rules also mention
passage by a 2/3 majority, which neither 4-4 nor 6-5 are.

I was definitely remiss in not raising this point before the ballot
deadline passed, and for that I apologise.

But if one of the arguments for/against this change is the
hardship imposed on module authors, then I think it's only
reasonable to get *their* responses rather than assuming we
know what they will be.  That the vote was as close as it was,
the tally missed someone, and only allowed 48 hours makes me
think it counts as 'hasty;' that additional people who are possibly
entitled to vote (depending upon the hardship issue) have expressed
opinions after the vote makes me think we have 'added information;'
that module-writers on this list didn't realise they were entitled
to vote (were they?) makes me think the decision might be 'erroneous.'

If module-writer hardship is *not* one of the issues, I withdraw
all of these remarks.  If no-one from the prevailing side wants
to revisit it, I won't object.  I've cast my vote and expressed
my concerns, so now I'll shut up.
-- 
#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation  <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>