IMO as long as that second email is private, then we could probably drop the requirement for the first notification.
-Taylor > On Jun 5, 2016, at 9:29 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:56 PM P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com > <mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> I don't know the full history behind that requirement, but it would seem >> to me the essence is to make sure any IPMC members have a chance to object >> in private before anything hits a public list (I.e. general@). >> > > That should be the case for the second email. We rely on the PPMC to do > the right thing and vote as they see fit. The IPMC should object if need > be after the vote but before the 72 hour window expires. This is > consistent with how the board operates. > > John > > >> >> -Taylor >> >>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 7:02 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I thought we discussed this in the past, maybe I missed some part of the >>> discussion. I thought that this section was to be removed from the >> wording: >>> >>> The [VOTE] message should be forwarded to the IPMC ( >>> priv...@incubator.apache.org) to notify them that the vote is underway. >> Do >>> not CC or BCC the IPMC on this thread. Instead, forward the initial VOTE >>> email. >>> >>> So I'm wondering, is it still necessary to send the initial thread over? >>> This is above and beyond the board's requirements. >>> >>> John >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
