On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: >... > It's inconceivable to me that this will have an ounce of impact on either > someone of Sanjiva's accomplishments or a future podling with the momentum of > Stratos, but to ensure that my positive assessment is communicated > unequivocally to one and all in the VOTE tally as it was during the PROPOSAL > thread, I hereby change the value of my vote from -0 to +0.99999.
I never worried about the "vote impact", and your change was not requested. My concern was that your pedantism caused two *highly* qualified (and IMO, unimpeachable) people to issue a mea culpa in response to your email. That was unjustified, and highly unnecessary when looking at the actual edit that was performed. Sure, I could also say "Ross/Sanjiva: grow a pair. Don't apologize." But I like those guys, so I never said that ;-) I dislike that the atmosphere puts them into a position where they feel a need to apologize. Personally speaking, it feels uncooperative and rules-based rather than "what can we do, to get our goals accomplished?" It felt like the *goal* was lost, in favor of "oh, boo hoo, a small [favorable] edit was made". IMO, the proper response would be "+1, great proposal. (as an aside, all: please do not edit once voting is underway)". ... And step back and consider the other end of the spectrum: say the proposal was edited several times during the voting process. The IPMC is highly-qualified to say "meh. nothing substantive. let's run with it." ... or they could "holy crap. everything changed. we need to run another vote." I stand behind Sanjiva and what he/WSO2 are doing. I don't like seeing him put into a position where he does the Right Thing, then feels a need to apologize for it. I'd like to see us move past that. -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
