Re: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Some folks are away on vacation, also not sure that the process implies a vote at all.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

Wayne Beaton ---12/03/2008 02:23:10 PM---I am not aware of any specific passage that states explicitly that each

From:	Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	12/03/2008 02:23 PM
Subject:	Re: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...

---

I am not aware of any specific passage that states explicitly that each 
committer must cast their own vote. However, it is my belief and opinion 
that the development process implies this.

Is it a big problem to get each of the IBM committers to cast their own 
votes?

Wayne

Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> Can you point me to the rule ?
>
> -----------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wayne Beaton [wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12/03/2008 02:38 PM EST
> To: "Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions" 
> <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...
>
>
>
> The PMC would rather see each committer's vote individually submitted.
>
> Wayne
>
> Paul Trevithick wrote:
>> Tony, can you please get each IBM committer to vote independently? I¹m
>> pretty sure that¹s the only way these committer votes can be done. 
>> Cc-ing
>> Bjorn in case I¹m wrong.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/08 8:31 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> All IBM commiters vote is for option -1
>>>
>>> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
>>>
>>> "Tom Doman" ---12/02/2008 06:24:53 PM---+2
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> "Tom Doman" <tdoman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> To:
>>> "higgins-dev" <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Date:
>>> 12/02/2008 06:24 PM
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [higgins-dev] Java 5, going once...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +2
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul Trevithick <ptrevithick@xxxxxxxxx> 12/02/08 4:44 PM >>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> I think we*ve had sufficient time to air the issues for and against. I
>>> would
>>> ask all Higgins committers to vote by Monday (Dec 8th) as follows:
>>>
>>> - 1 = no change (the entire project stays on Java 1.4)
>>>  0 = abstain
>>> +1 = selected components of Higgins 1.1 may use Java 5
>>> +2 = the entire Higgins 1.1 project moves to Java 5.0
>>>
>>> For the +1 case, the relevant component owner will make the decision.
>>>
>>> My vote is +2
>>>
>>> -- Paul
>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/team- leaders.php
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> higgins- dev mailing list
>>> higgins- dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins- dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> higgins-dev mailing list
>>> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> higgins-dev mailing list
>> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
>
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev