> -Original Message-
> From: Emmanuel Bourg
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 16:25
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Revised dormancy policy - take 3
>
> Le 07/06/2011 22:24, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>
> > 2) To revive a component requi
Le 07/06/2011 22:24, Phil Steitz a écrit :
2) To revive a component requires a VOTE. Any ASF committer interested in
bringing the zombie back to life can initiate this action. Revival VOTEs
are majority rule.
I'm -1 on this revival rule. A vote implies that the revival could be
rejected, an
On 6/8/11 8:05 AM, James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> That would then still require a sandbox promotion VOTE and I see no
>> reason to fuss with moving svn and the site to the sandbox just to
>> revive something. The idea in the proposal is you just go ba
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> That would then still require a sandbox promotion VOTE and I see no
> reason to fuss with moving svn and the site to the sandbox just to
> revive something. The idea in the proposal is you just go back to
> hacking on the revived zombie in c
+1
I kind of know Jelly will come here...
And with this rule, it feels like it might allow me to smoothly restart work on
jelly when time comes, then request a vote for removal of dormancy when I feel
confident.
As answered by Phil to James, I believe that the vote is only considered with
tha
ant. Implementation
details will be worked out once we have consensus that we want to
take this step.
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:25
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: [VOTE]
On 6/8/11 4:16 AM, James Carman wrote:
> I really don't like the idea of having a vote to revive something
I think we all agree on the "low bar for revival" principle. I
removed the traditional "rule of 3" that we have applied in the past
even for sandbox promotions from the proposal, so all tha
I really don't like the idea of having a vote to revive something.
I'd say that if a commons committer has an itch, then let them scratch
it in the sandbox if they want to. Do we really need a special
procedure here? Can't we just say that you have to revive it into the
sandbox and then follow th
Le 07/06/2011 22:24, Phil Steitz a écrit :
Thanks, all, for the great comments on the previous versions [1][2].
I have tried to incorporate them.
Revised Dormancy Policy
0) To move a component to dormant requires a VOTE. A single -1
suffices to postpone the action; but a -1 in a dormancy vote
8, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
> -1, needs better handling of details and an outside revival procedure.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:25
>> To: Commons Developers List
&g
-1, needs better handling of details and an outside revival procedure.
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 16:25
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] Revised dormancy policy - take 3
>
>
+1
Oliver
Am 07.06.2011 22:24, schrieb Phil Steitz:
Thanks, all, for the great comments on the previous versions [1][2].
I have tried to incorporate them.
Revised Dormancy Policy
0) To move a component to dormant requires a VOTE. A single -1
suffices to postpone the action; but a -1 in a do
Thanks, all, for the great comments on the previous versions [1][2].
I have tried to incorporate them.
Revised Dormancy Policy
0) To move a component to dormant requires a VOTE. A single -1
suffices to postpone the action; but a -1 in a dormancy vote is
really a +1 to help sustain or advance th
13 matches
Mail list logo
