Should the [VOTE] phase also be preceded by a [DISCUSS] phase so that
people can have a chance to discuss, debate, haggle, argue, first?
Calling a vote out the blue leaves people in a position of having to
make a decision cold.
On 12/22/2019 9:26 AM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
Removing the initial [VOTE] in an attempt at removing ambiguity
(although [VOTE] is still in the tile).
Let's dispense with the ALL ambiguity
We should assume if it does not say [VOTE] it is not a vote?
A follow on questions is who can call a binding vote? I searched
apache a little, but did not find a clear answer. This appears to be
up to the PMC. Brennan is qualified to to call a vote and certainly a
member of the core team just still without portfolio. Is that an
oversight: https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/nuttx ?
But I am sure we cannot let anyone in the community force a PPMC
vote. Other projects document document their votinig procedure such
the Avalon project:
https://people.apache.org/~mcconnell/site/central/community/process/pmc/procedures.html
Project Avalon allows any member of the community to start a vote,
provided that they first go through a discussion and proposal phase.
