Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote? On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote: >> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote: >>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it >>>> (counting votes on both lists): >>>> >>>> +1s >>>> James Carman >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> Matt Benson >>>> Benedikt Ritter >>>> Bruno Kinoshita >>>> Gary Gregory >>>> Luc Maisonobe >>>> Oliver Heger >>>> Christian Grobmeier >>>> Torsten Curdt >>>> >>>> -1s >>>> Mark Thomas >>>> Thomas Vandahl >>>> Damjan Jovanovic >>>> Gilles Sadowski >>>> Jorg Schaible >>>> >>>> +0.5 >>>> Olivier Lamy >>>> >>>> +0 >>>> Ralph Goers >>>> >>>> -0 >>>> Emmanuel Bourg >>>> >>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We >>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for >>>> that. >>> >>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we >>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is >>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE >>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first >>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues. >> >> I agree entirely with Phil. >> >> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days. >> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through. > > I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change. > > I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed through". > > I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there > is consensus to do so amongst the active developers. > > I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to > be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component > to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If > there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal > with one set of them rather than 40+ sets. > > Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component > is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be > forced to switch to git. > > Mark > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
