On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:18, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Any other rational opinions? > > I don't recall a case where a candidate was not elected because of an > unnecessarily strict -1. All I'm seeing now is abstract discussion > about hypothetical votes and a lot of hot air. > > I'd go for a policy vote only once there's a concrete case (i.e. a > failed vote) where progress is being obstructed by reasons that the > majority finds unreasonable.
Unfortunately, that is usually a poor approach. One person needs to raise the "policy change" request, and that invariably ends up looking like "one person who is upset with the result". That person will either stay quiet, or may be alienated by their request. I think it is always best to settle these things *before* putting somebody in the position of having to be the Bad Guy and (apparently) question/attack a vote result. I think this has been a very useful discussion. I've already seen some emails (a couple private) of people surprised that a PMC nomination could even be vetoed. That Joe's suggestion is an actual change from what they expected. Thus... we have some good clarification on precedent, what may be good practice, and what (specifically) the IPMC may want to do. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
