I think it would be good to extend the vote, yes, or re-vote, it's not a problem.
2018-05-15 8:34 GMT+02:00 Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>: > Cédric, > > Should the voting period be extended for this vote? > > Remko > > > > On May 15, 2018, at 15:07, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I can say why I didn't vote: I didn't have time to review the proposal and > its consequences, so I don't want to give a blind +1 or -1. > > Le mar. 15 mai 2018 à 08:03, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> a écrit : > >> What I meant to say yesterday at 1am was: "On the other hand I do not get >> why only 2 PMC members have been voting +1 on this proposal..." >> >> This is not against voting +0, but about why so few PMC members vote at >> all... (?) >> >> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- >> Von: MG <mg...@arscreat.com> >> Datum: 15.05.18 00:57 (GMT+01:00) >> An: dev@groovy.apache.org, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> >> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Support Java-like array >> >> My 10 cents: >> [VOTE][LAZY] seems a bit odd - if PMC members are on vacation/ill/afk one >> person could basically push through sweeping changes, which seems odd. >> On the other had I do not get why only 2 PMC members have been voting on >> this proposal - if you do not care either way, and it already has 2 x +1, >> just push it over the edge, if you are really against it, shoot it down >> with -1... >> Cheers, >> mg >> >> >> On 13.05.2018 10:57, Paul King wrote: >> >> My understanding is that there is some flexibility when asking for votes >> so long as it is clear up front what the expectation is, see e.g. [1]. Even >> though there are numerous generic Apache sites with similar descriptions, I >> was thinking of adding some more content in some of our pages to summarise >> the most relevant information for our project. I was thinking of some >> additional wording to the "Contributing code" section of the website to >> indicate that typically committers should be following the same guidelines >> (creating PRs etc.) for any significant code change as for people without >> committer status. Also, I was going to add some wording somewhere around >> our typical conventions for voting. Something like: >> >> We strongly value keeping consensus within the project. Sometimes >> consensus is obvious from general discussions or informal +1s in PRs or >> Jira issues. For significant changes within PRs or Jiras, it is good to >> send an informational to the dev mailing list in any case. When consensus >> is not obvious or for potentially contentious changes, emails with a [VOTE] >> in the subject line are a good way to ascertain consensus. Typical >> scenarios are: >> * [VOTE] for a release - requires 3 more binding +1 votes than -1 votes >> (no veto capability) >> * [VOTE] for code change - requires 3 binding +1s but can be vetoed with >> a single -1 binding vote >> * [VOTE][LAZY] for code change - assumes absence of a vote is a +1 (but >> you'd normally want at least one binding +1 so best to wait a bit longer if >> you don't have at least one) but can be vetoed with a single -1 binding vote >> A committer creating a PR request is similar to [VOTE][LAZY]. >> 72 hours is the minimum for such votes but there is no maximum time delay >> - though waiting too long isn't a good idea since the circumstances which >> lead to earlier +1s might have changed. >> >> If anyone has improvements for this wording, let me know. >> >> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> >> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> That’s probably why over at Log4j we use slightly different language for >>> voting: >>> >>> “The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or more if required). At least >>> 3 +1 votes ...” >>> >>> It seems unfair that by not participating, it is possible to essentially >>> vote -0 or -1 without justification... >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Remko >>> >>> > On May 13, 2018, at 11:48, Daniel.Sun <sun...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > Please see my original email: >>> > "The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at >>> least >>> > three +1 PMC votes are cast." >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Daniel.Sun >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html >>> >> >> >>
