You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nuttx.apache.org by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com> on 2019/12/22 15:26:53 UTC
votes must say [VOTE]
Removing the initial [VOTE] in an attempt at removing ambiguity
(although [VOTE] is still in the tile).
> Let's dispense with the ALL ambiguity
>
> We should assume if it does not say [VOTE] it is not a vote?
>
A follow on questions is who can call a binding vote? I searched apache
a little, but did not find a clear answer. This appears to be up to the
PMC. Brennan is qualified to to call a vote and certainly a member of
the core team just still without portfolio. Is that an oversight:
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/nuttx ?
But I am sure we cannot let anyone in the community force a PPMC vote.
Other projects document document their votinig procedure such the Avalon
project:
https://people.apache.org/~mcconnell/site/central/community/process/pmc/procedures.html
Project Avalon allows any member of the community to start a vote,
provided that they first go through a discussion and proposal phase.
Re: votes must say [VOTE]
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> Should the [VOTE] phase also be preceded by a [DISCUSS] phase so that people can have a chance to discuss, debate, haggle, argue, first?
It’s best if that is done, as I’ve mentioned before yes. Votes shod be used to confirm consensus not split the community.
> A follow on questions is who can call a binding vote?
Only PMC are binding, so generally that's taken to be PPMC votes in incubating projects. (Note however that only Incubator PMC votes are binding when it comes to releases), This doesn’t mean you should ignore other votes or discourage other people from voting. The best votes come with an explanation to why the person would pick this option and not just a +1/-1.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: votes must say [VOTE]
Posted by Gregory Nutt <sp...@gmail.com>.
Should the [VOTE] phase also be preceded by a [DISCUSS] phase so that
people can have a chance to discuss, debate, haggle, argue, first?
Calling a vote out the blue leaves people in a position of having to
make a decision cold.
On 12/22/2019 9:26 AM, Gregory Nutt wrote:
> Removing the initial [VOTE] in an attempt at removing ambiguity
> (although [VOTE] is still in the tile).
>> Let's dispense with the ALL ambiguity
>>
>> We should assume if it does not say [VOTE] it is not a vote?
>>
> A follow on questions is who can call a binding vote? I searched
> apache a little, but did not find a clear answer. This appears to be
> up to the PMC. Brennan is qualified to to call a vote and certainly a
> member of the core team just still without portfolio. Is that an
> oversight: https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/nuttx ?
>
> But I am sure we cannot let anyone in the community force a PPMC
> vote. Other projects document document their votinig procedure such
> the Avalon project:
> https://people.apache.org/~mcconnell/site/central/community/process/pmc/procedures.html
>
> Project Avalon allows any member of the community to start a vote,
> provided that they first go through a discussion and proposal phase.
>