Might be nice to leave "binding-ness" as an accounting detail for the
person running the vote, to get rid of the "my vote counts, yours
doesn't" thing that David pointed out.
After all, if you get consensus, and it's all +1s.....
geir
Paul Fremantle wrote:
David
I think you are wrong. Before I saw that syntax I used to assume that
I couldn't vote unless my vote was binding. I've seen this model
encourage non-PMC members to vote (myself included).
Paul
On 10/24/06, david reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> it's a hint that the voter is a pmc member.
*sigh*
Really, no, seriously, you're telling me that the PMC can't be trusted
to count votes from it's members and others it feels are qualified?
Wow...
Seriously, pointing out such differences just splits the community.
"Hey, my vote counts! Yours doesn't!"
After seeing the people involved in the incubator at AC US, I'm pretty
sure they were all past the stage of being impressed by such things. We
should get over ourselves.
>> > +1 (binding)
>>
>> Forgive my ignorance, but what does "+1 (binding)" mean?
>>
>> --
>> david
>>
>> http://feathercast.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
--
david
Have you listened to FeatherCast yet?
http://feathercast.org/
Bought the t-shirt?
http://www.cafepress.com/feathercast/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
