On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:50:44PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 7/10/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
In keeping with Apache practice, I'd like to allow 72 hours or so for
the vote to close, so please vote by 11:59PST on Thursday July
13th.
(this duration seems just a little bit on the short side to me:
it's good
to give everyone a chance to cast a vote. not sure whether there's a
consensus about the right duration for these votes. but it's
probably best
to kick off something on another thread rather than disrupt this
vote...)
is 72 hours the right length for an acceptance vote?
I expect that is a difficult question :-)
I've personally always been annoyed with these kinds of limits. I
just don't
like how it puts some sort of "pressure" on volunteers. OTOH, when
there has
been plenty of discussion/soul searching beforehand and the vote is
just a
formalisation of a pre-existing consensus 72 hours is plenty.
Harmony has grown
into "72 hours or until all with a binding vote have cast theirs,
or longer if
someone asks for an extension" and its a suitable comprimise there.
Over at this
other project that is now dead at some point we made it "1 week"
for everything
to avoid things getting pushed through over an independence day
weekend (for
example).
In this case, we had several weeks of discussion on Heraldry,
including some F2F
conversations at ApacheCon EU, so 72 hours doesn't seem like a big
deal to me.
If people want to extend the voting period, I've no problem with
that. I guess the bigger
question is whether we ought to change the 72 hour guideline for the
foundation as a whole, or
make incuabator votes a clearly noted exception.
Ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
