another small comment: if folks only like to get an opinion, then don't call a [VOTE] but instead a [DISCUSS] opinion poll.
Because a vote is a vote is a vote... LieGrue, strub --- On Fri, 9/10/10, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > From: James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > Subject: Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 10:53 AM > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Tim > Williams <william...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > That vote is majority rules, so the IPMC could in > effect overrule the > > project - the "preference/opinion" had already > previously been > > gathered. In any case, I was using that instance to > ask the broader > > question of why we (IPMC) get binding votes on project > matters. It > > seems to me that the healthy thing to do is closer to > the board model > > where we trust projects to do the right thing, ask for > an ack, and > > then only challenge the project on the basis of a > > legal/release/trademark/etc issue. > > > > If we tell the projects that you have to re-vote with > the peanut > > gallery, then the peanut gallery effect is > predictable. Those votes, > > for example, are because they don't *like* the new > name personally, > > not because there's any real problems with it. > > > > Nobody told them to re-vote in this situation. They > took it upon > themselves to ask the IPMC. If you ask for opinions > from people, > you're going to get them. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
