My sense is that the vote is a "belts and suspenders" sort of thing. We don't need it (we have tacit approval by virtue of the various agreements that the Committers are required to sign or have signed on their behalf), but many among us feel that it's better if we have explicit approval.
I'm concerned that this adds complexity to the process and we're going to get hammered by the community. IMHO, we should only include this if there is a real (legal) necessity to do so.
Perhaps we can turn this around and grant Participants the ability to put on the brakes (i.e. compel the project to revert into an earlier state, or something) if there's a problem (probably as part of the grievance handling process). I recall that there was some concern on the call that putting the onus on the Participants in this way would make it hard for a Participant to step forward and shut things down.
Wayne
