William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> jean-frederic clere wrote: >>>> Now for me that just makes another chapter in the "STATUS" file: >>>> "PATCHES being discussed". After a week those patches should be accepted >>>> or reverted. Reverted patches and corresponding discussions should stay >>>> in the "STATUS" until a solution is found. I would keep a passing margin >>>> of +3. >>> A higher bar to add a feature than to release the software? Plainly >>> absurd. >> Features additions are not mentioned in my proposal. We also use a +3 >> vote for releases. > > Maybe we are misusing words. A passing margin of +3 means three more +1's > than -1's; that means if you had 2 -1's you would seek 5 +1's to keep going > over the objection. That's what I referred to as absurd.
I don't see why it is absurd when you have 2 -1 and 5 +1 but well 5 -1 and 8 +1 starts to show why you think it "absurd". So I think that " at least 3 +1's and more + than -" is acceptable for me. May be one additional duty for committers could be to cast vote on proposals when the PMC Chair requests it to reach enough votes so that a majority express their view. > > If you are talking about at least 3 +1's, more + than -, then that's being > realistic. JFC - did you really mean a margin? Yep that was what I meant at that time. Cheers Jean-Frederic > > Bill > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
