Vote: apr-iconv 1.0.2

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

While the original tarball was prematurely released, I'm
reminded (thank you :) that it's at least +3 votes, and
1 more +1 than -1 to bless a release.  I deliberately waited
to retract the tarball so everyone's votes were correctly
re-tallied.

So far, Sander votes +1.  OtherBill votes -1.

Paul and Cliff have implicit votes for apr-iconv 1.0.2, but never
actually said +1 to the release.  Paul was the RM, while Cliff 
voted on keeping/droping the tarball.  Neither is exactly a vote.

If you two (and anyone else with an explicit vote on the apr-iconv
1.0.2 tarball) vote in the next hour it would clarify things quite 
a bit.

Thank you.

Bill

Re: Vote: apr-iconv 1.0.2

[Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> If you two (and anyone else with an explicit vote on the apr-iconv
> 1.0.2 tarball) vote in the next hour it would clarify things quite
> a bit.

My original vote was intended to be +1 for release.  Apparently such a
vote at this point is of little value.  And admittedly I haven't tested
the thing.  So I'll just call it a +0 for release.  Which effectively
means that the thing will be pulled, I realize.  Like I said, I don't
care.  Let's just fix the problem and move on.