On 2/5/11 4:16 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Bertrand,
>
> I agree. The good thing about a vibrant community is that they
> generally enforce this. All I'm saying is this shouldn't be a "must"
> requirement, rather it should be a shall and we can let the individual
> communities work out what except
Bertrand,
I agree. The good thing about a vibrant community is that they
generally enforce this. All I'm saying is this shouldn't be a "must"
requirement, rather it should be a shall and we can let the individual
communities work out what exceptions they allow.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Bertr
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> ...I think it's important to keep things flexible because, as much as we
> would like everything to fit the same rules, some communities need to
> be a bit more dynamic and we need to trust the project PMC's and
> members to do what's best for
Makes sense to me. The voting document itself be updated I guess.
Regards,
Alan
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> Yeah I agree with this. At MyFaces we typically way the 72 hours, but
> for security things or master pom updates which prevent a built, we
> often adopt "lazy co
Yeah I agree with this. At MyFaces we typically way the 72 hours, but
for security things or master pom updates which prevent a built, we
often adopt "lazy consensus" type rule and fudge the timeframe with
enough community votes.
I think it's important to keep things flexible because, as much as
All,
Being well over 72 since the vote was initiated, and with 16 positive
votes, 3 of which are binding and no negative or neutral votes, this
vote passes, and is now closed.
Thanks for your participation and for allowing us back into the
Incubator to start next phase of life for Lucene.Net. Fur
