incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: The incubator and Poland
Date Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:30:24 GMT
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again).  The incubator AFAICT
> replicated a tricameral vote.  To release you must have:
> The point?  None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
> does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
> funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...

Tricameral vote means that three entities have to vote for the same 
thing AFAIK, and this is not the case here.

The votes have different meanings, and AFAIK we need only two:

1 - someone at Apache votes to have the project come to Apache
     (a PMC or the board)
2 - the Incubator votes to spin it off after incubation

I don't see the problem here, we are talking about two *distinct* 

If you refer to the previous "three parties vote simultaneously", I can 
only agree that it sucks big time. That's why we are opting for a system 
that clearly states that the one responsible for the thing gets the say.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message