Ah, Thanks for clarifying Chip, wasn't super clear in the by-laws the way they are written. So I wasn't sure how to write it.
I totally agree with you that all votes are important, the only reason I focused on the PMC votes is because we seemed to be getting completely off base about getting the release out and what was counting. Was trying to help a non-bias party. :-) Matt On 9/10/13 12:05 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mathias Mullins ><mathias.mull...@citrix.com>wrote: > >> Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared. Animesh is >> correct on this. >> >> >I don't have to write "Binding" next to my vote. Votes are technically >"binding" when the person voting is considered to have binding vote. > >Also, -1 is not a veto. It's a vote! Unless this is a technical matter >(which releases are specifically excluded from), there isn't any >veto'ing... > >As a reminder, all votes (binding / PMC or otherwise) are important to >this >process. They help people express opinions about the RC. > >[snip] > > >> PMC Votes - 3 +1 / 2 -1 >> >> So Animesh is correct unless Sebastien you changed your vote to a -1 in >> all of these conversations and I missed it. Remember is is Lazy Majority >> of PMC Members only. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Matt >> > >Matt's right. Animesh is now free to make a decision on his own about >this. He's got enough votes to release 4.2.0 at this point, and has kept >the thread open for more than enough time to gather input. > >As the RM (specifically... as a committer that called the vote), Animesh >can either choose to re-spin another RC to accommodate the concerns raised >(for which there happens to be a clear fix), or he can move forward with >the release promotion from dist/dev to dist/release. > >As I said in my vote, I'm -1 because we have known users that are not >going >to be able to upgrade. That's my personal vote though, and it isn't a / >can't be a veto. > >-chip
