On 03/14/2010 12:12 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
But I also recall people (Mark Miller maybe?) saying that the votes are not
being counted and we are just looking to get an idea about the sentiment on
this suggestion (paraphrasing him, sorry if I messed something up).
Otis
When I tallied up the in progress votes, I said it was not an official
tally because I didn't want to claim I could make that call. I was just
trying to show where people stood with the votes - kind of clearing that
out of the discussion. And to let people clarify if they didn't actually
mean to vote that way.
Technically, committer votes are not binding. That's why we had the
third vote - the PMC vote - really they are the only binding votes on
anything - though of course they should probably take the larger
community in mind when deciding how they will vote.
So the reason we had 3 votes, from what I saw:
The first vote was just to gauge the committers - technically, according
to Apache rules, committers can't actually confirm something like this
happening (though it does say some can have earned enough merritt to
have a binding vote - not sure who would decide that though). Apache
says that "those that do decide", but it also says that PMC members have
the only binding votes. Its an "interesting" intersection I'll admit.
The second vote was to change things so that Grant, Michael Busch, and
Andi were more comfortable with the proposal - they all liked the idea
of adding that Lucene could release without Solr. Mike McCandless
decided to change the proposal, and so we went with another vote.
Apparently we were all okay with that change.
The third vote was the PMC vote - that's really a vote that had to
happen, because they have the binding votes.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
