Hi Doug, Sorry to be so picky, but my ultimate goal here is to save time for my project and all future graduating projects by avoiding as much thrashing on this kind of issue as possible.
To me, agreeing on "the norm" is not the same as policy, especially policy that does not allow for exceptions. And again, to me, "consensus != unanimity". And if it is "policy" then at least Struts is non-conforming: [1] Would this prior discussion also be on general@ or some other list? -Alex [1] http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html On 10/2/13 9:32 AM, "Doug Cutting" <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: >On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> The thread on members@ was titled "Committer Qualifications". I asked a >> question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that >> committer voting does not have vetoes, and the document at [1] also >>seems >> to say that. > >I followed up on that thread on members@, to get some clarity. > >This issue has come up before. I don't have time to search the >archives now, but I recall that folks agreed then that the norm at >Apache is consensus for committer additions. The mention of >"procedural" votes on the voting page has been a source of confusion. >I suspect it is meant to allude to release plans and the like. We >should clarify that it isn't meant to refer to committer or PMC member >votes, that those are generally subject to consensus votes. > >Doug > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
