I don't think anyone here asked for a vote with ill-will; it was mostly a matter of uncertainty (1). However, I do agree with Greg that only one vote among the departing community, taken on their public list, should be necessary when a community like Zipkin decides to leave.
Nonetheless, I did appreciate the opportunity the vote provided to wish Zipkin well. I would hope that we can always find a way to wish communities leaving the incubator all the best in their future undertakings. Best Regards, Myrle 1.) This is actually true for many of the instances in which the IPMC is being characterized as overreaching; we should look for ways to decrease this uncertainty. On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:17 AM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? > > > > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus. > > > A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no" > outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face. > > > > But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record > in > > the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation. > > > That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with > their vote to depart. > > > > Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a > mentor > > called the vote and I respect their decision to do so. > > > Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote? > > Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we > should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling". > That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of disrespect > for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote > to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of communities. > It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and > "bureaucracy" to pretend so. > > I'm fine stating all this nonsensical behavior in public. > -g >
