Delayed sponsorship vote on the JDK 6 Project Proposal
robilad at kaffe.org
Wed Jan 16 16:14:25 PST 2008
Mark Reinhold wrote:
> Joe Darcy proposed the JDK 6 Project on 14 December .
> Kelly O'Hair called for the Build Group to vote on sponsoring this
> Project on 7 January , and in due course that vote passed .
> The interim governance rules  require that a Group vote to sponsor
> a proposed Project within 14 days, so strictly speaking this vote was
> invalid. (I'm sure this was an innocent mistake on Kelly's part, most
> likely related to Sun's week-long break over the holidays.)
> Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
> request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
> sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.
> GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
I agree with recognizing the vote.
Rationale: No build group Member challenged the validity of the vote. It
passed without No votes by Members. So I think it's unlikely that a
re-vote would result in a different outcome, from the one already
expressed by its Members, in particular since the discussion of the vote
on the build-dev list gives no indication of disagreement between Members.
A potential voice of disagreement was Erik Trimble post , but he
seems to be asking whether he can vote NO. Per the interim rules, as he
is not listed among the build group's members, he can not vote
without the group voting him in as a member first.
As an item of process curiosity, though: You are a member of the build
group, and haven't cast a vote, so you could try to argue that your vote
window still extends until the end of the two week period started by
Kelly's call for votes on the 7th. ;)
I think we can agree that a vote can be counted out by a groups's
moderator before all members have voted, provided that the majority is
irreversibly reached for or against the issue being voted on, as it was
in this case. That would prevent decisions from being delayed due to
Members whose votes couldn't influence a decision any more being absent
from the vote. Does that make sense to others?
More information about the gb-discuss