Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rohityadav89@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rohityadav89@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20130208022545.GB52695@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp>
References: 
 <CA+2rt420BgfY3zueP3kTB_GDgieX-xCjA=1-vkoxSFGti5zAsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130208022545.GB52695@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp>
From: Rohit Yadav <bhaisaab@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:22:08 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CANLSSBV0ubmGeQjRdhQyr1NkVE7tpj_JhV8N3+ny0bOqsxkKRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Revert back to old mailing list mechanism, which would add
 "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it send out
To: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
Cc: Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>, Alex Huang <alex.huang@citrix.com>,
	Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>,
 Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>,
	David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com>,
 runseb@gmail.com, dkulp@apache.org,
	htrippaers@schubergphilis.com, shadowsor@gmail.com, somikbehera@vmware.com,
	frank.zhang@citrix.com, wido@widodh.nl,
	"cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+1 the old way

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to call for a vote for reverting back to the old mailing list
>> mechanism, which would add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it
>> send out.
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Point of order question:
>
> I'd like to ask exactly which type of vote we believe we are holding
> here.  Not to be the "rules guy", but isn't this a technical decision?
> If so, the bylaws we agreed to were that technical decisions are
> only put to a formal vote in circumstances where discussion was unable
> to achieve consensus.  I guess that's what you believe has happened.
>
> That being said, we've basically started a vote that you could immediate
> close down.  You've cast a -1 vote, and technical decisions are formally
> voted on using the lazy consensus (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and no
> binding -1 votes). Based on that, and the wording of this vote, the vote
> itself is procedurally meaningless.  It's more useful as a continuation
> of the conversation thread.
>
> The more appropriate vote would be to assume that the questions were
> being raised, based on a technical change to the mailing list.  Effectively,
> the state that we were in is the baseline (prior to the change), and several
> people have expressed opinions that are against that original technical decision.
>
> -chip