[iot-pmc] Voting on CQs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

[iot-pmc] Voting on CQs

From: Benjamin Cabé <benjamin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 14:41:19 +0200
Delivered-to: iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/iot-pmc>
List-help: <mailto:iot-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc>, <mailto:iot-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/iot-pmc>, <mailto:iot-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Thread-topic: Voting on CQs
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.3.170325

Hi,

I am not sure why and when we decided to go for a rule where all PMC members have to +1 CQ's (and at least have no -1 for 7 days after the vote started) but I would like to suggest we change the rule so that a single PMC members can +1 on behalf of the PMC (assuming the PMC member in question is not a committer on the project). AFAICT many other PMCs do the same, and there is of course still the possibility for anyone to -1 should there be an issue or disagreement with the CQ.

CQs are already eating up a lot of time for everyone so I think we should try to be more efficient in how we handle them.

Thoughts?

Benjamin –

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [iot-pmc] Voting on CQs
  - From: Kai Kreuzer
- Re: [iot-pmc] Voting on CQs
  - From: Jens Reimann

Prev by Date: [iot-pmc] [CQ 13455] JSON editor Version: 0.7.22 (PB CQ10804)
Next by Date: Re: [iot-pmc] Voting on CQs
Previous by thread: [iot-pmc] [CQ 13455] JSON editor Version: 0.7.22 (PB CQ10804)
Next by thread: Re: [iot-pmc] Voting on CQs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs