Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:42:50 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: package voting rules (was Re: compface package)
Message-ID: <20011116194250.GN17035@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011114213213 DOT GA9676 AT redhat DOT com> <86ofm3ti20 DOT fsf AT bock DOT chem DOT unc DOT edu> <00c001c16e61$dea82890$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00c001c16e61$dea82890$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 04:45:15PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Thank you. I've no objection to this: does any other maintainer have an
>objection to compface being a package?

None from me.

For voting, how about just saying that if three maintainers like it, it's
in?  If one vetoes it, it requires discussion, and five votes for
inclusion?

I'm trying to avoid having to tally the total number of maintainers,
basically.

cgf