lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Carlson <>
Subject Re: Action Item Vote Request
Date Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:44:41 GMT

I 100% agree with you an minimizing beauracracy.

I think that we have been doing lots of talking and trying to handle issue,
but we haven't gone into action and made a decision. Since this is a
community process, I think the one way to do this is by providing areas
where people can express there ideas (i.e. Scratchpad) and voting when it
comes time to make a decision (like creating a more formal release process).

That's what I am trying to do with these initiatives. I don't think voting
takes very long.

> Finally, let me just add this, I'll make it short.
> I'm +1 for minimizing beaurocracy :)
> When people have constructive ideas, time, energy, and desire to
> contribute I'm all for supporting that.  Not blindly, but not slowing
> them down too much.  These things come in limited quantities,
> unfortunately :(

By the way here is the decision making rules for Jakarta, I was assuming a
consensus vote.

An action requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1
votes and no binding vetos.
An action requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding +1
votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes.
All other action items are considered to have lazy approval until somebody
votes -1, after which point they are decided by either consensus or majority
vote, depending on the type of action item.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message