Re: Votes on Apache 1.0.1 ... oh my ...

[Andrew Wilson <an...@tees.elsevier.co.uk>]

Me:
> > According to http://bong.com/httpd/voting.html we need 3 +1 votes to
> > carry a patch.  I'm exercising what little discretion I have left
> > and making a saving throw for 54.quiet_logs and 60.licence_typo.
> > Note that Rob H said that he'd +1 everything in absentia, I've only
> > been able to find one definate vote from him and assumed the rest.
> > Please tell me if this an unfair interpretation, and in future I
> > think we need to be a bit more active when it comes to voting,
> > please.

Bad Andy, no biscuit.

Roy F:
> For future reference, that IS an unfair interpretation and should not
> have been done, even though it made no difference given that Randy's
> votes make up the difference.  RobH didn't say he'd +1 everything in
> absentia, and even if any of us did say something as silly as that it
> should be ignored.  The whole reason for voting is to ensure a minimum
> of peer review, so don't short-circuit that review.  Given the number
> of group members, 3 votes is an easy accomplishment even when half the
> group is travelling.  Anything which doesn't accumulate 3 votes is
> simply not worth including in a release.

Understood.

> ......Roy
> 
> p.s.  I am still worried about 59.scoreboard_race, since at least one
>       person seems to have continued problems even after that patch has
>       been applied.  I have not had any problems myself since I backed-out
>       patch 20.

	[From: sameer <sa...@c2.org>
	Subject: difficult to trace this problem happened again]

sameer hinted that he wasn't happy.  sameer?  How did the 23.mmap patch go?

David R:
> Sorry, -1 on you doing that; I concur with Roy's comments.
> (Though later votes made it unnecessary.)
> 
>  David.

1.0.1 isn't public.

Do you want to change it?

Ay.