Re: WELCOME to [email protected]

Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:20:42 -0700
Newsgroups gmane.comp.apache.community
Message-ID <CAAS6=7iTRJs3896vjzRwVHpK=8MpRK=o=DeEdgBjp6OO9ce9iQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
> folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is,
> as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired
> outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome,
> so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE
> closed, and then move forward.

+1

We have the language "at least 72 hours" baked into our RM template email.

In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by say,
coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE immediately
after those votes come in.  So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be
contentious should have a fixed end-time.

However, most ASF VOTEs are not contentious, and "at least 72 hours" seems to
work well.  As a convenience, perhaps it's vaguely similar to a parliamentary
"voice vote".  Voice votes can be challenged, and anyone wanting to challenge
a VOTE which runs for "at least 72 hours" will have "at least 72
hours" to do so. :)

Marvin Humphrey