On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, patrick o'leary <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hows that? >>> >>> Which vote has been passed? 1,2 or 3? >>> Considering how much has been discussed / altered in email threads, what's >>> actually been voted upon? >>> >>> The proposition is definitely unclear, and needs full fleshing out and >>> discussion before another vote is called. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed. >>>> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer >>>> vote was clear. >> While I have voted +1 I have to admin that I don't know which vote has >> passed or >> if at all. The noise on this vote / issue was extremely high from a >> community side I rather consider this as being far away from a >> consensus decision. I have to agree with chris that due to all the >> community discussions and arguments on the issue some might change >> their mind or come up with a proposal that work better for everybody. >> Lets wait a week or two, discuss again and vote again. Unless we don't >> get a clear vote without all this discussions I'd say there is still >> something "wrong" with the proposal. >> > > The vote is always the one proposed on the thread. It was in Yonik's > original email on this thread.
I would guess that 50% of the people replying to this issue where not aware of this! > > >> Don't get me wrong, I agree the committer vote was kind of clear but >> both projects are more than a list of committers and if the community >> is unhappy we should take the time and revise such a major structural >> / procedural change. Are we in a rush!? I don't think so. > > I'd hardly say the community is unhappy. A few people have expressed > unhappiness, but overall the large majority of people that expressed interest > were for it. The primary objection seems to be concern that Solr is going to > take over Lucene and all of Lucene is going to be consumed by a HTTP Server > code, which has been rejected a number of times by all who are for it I don't think that is the case. A large amount of different concerns are out there. Simply based on the amount of "huge" comments this seems to be not a clearly passed vote. simon > > -Grant
