lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:22:55 GMT
On 03/14/2010 12:12 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> But I also recall people (Mark Miller maybe?) saying that the votes are not being counted
and we are just looking to get an idea about the sentiment on this suggestion (paraphrasing
him, sorry if I messed something up).
> Otis

When I tallied up the in progress votes, I said it was not an official 
tally because I didn't want to claim I could make that call. I was just 
trying to show where people stood with the votes - kind of clearing that 
out of the discussion. And to let people clarify if they didn't actually 
mean to vote that way.

Technically, committer votes are not binding. That's why we had the 
third vote - the PMC vote - really they are the only binding votes on 
anything - though of course they should probably take the larger 
community in mind when deciding how they will vote.

So the reason we had 3 votes, from what I saw:

The first vote was just to gauge the committers - technically, according 
to Apache rules, committers can't actually confirm something like this 
happening (though it does say some can have earned enough merritt to 
have a binding vote - not sure who would decide that though). Apache 
says that "those that do decide", but it also says that PMC members have 
the only binding votes. Its an "interesting" intersection I'll admit.

The second vote was to change things so that Grant, Michael Busch, and 
Andi were more comfortable with the proposal - they all liked the idea 
of adding that Lucene could release without Solr. Mike McCandless 
decided to change the proposal, and so we went with another vote. 
Apparently we were all okay with that change.

The third vote was the PMC vote - that's really a vote that had to 
happen, because they have the binding votes.

- Mark

View raw message