+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> That's defined in the bylaws as:
>
> 3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3
> binding votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
>
> On Monday, July 14, 2014, Daan Hoogland
That's defined in the bylaws as:
3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3
binding votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
On Monday, July 14, 2014, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> +1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
>
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [
+1 binding
On 7/14/14, 12:39 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
the attached patch to our project bylaws.
Please vote:
[ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
[ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
[ ] -1 - do not accept the pro
+1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
brought this up earlier, sorry.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
