From general-return-44383-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Mar 19 17:49:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CEBE10C78 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 96606 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2014 17:49:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95785 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2014 17:49:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95770 invoked by uid 99); 19 Mar 2014 17:49:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:49:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.181 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.128.181] (HELO mail-ve0-f181.google.com) (209.85.128.181) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:49:06 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id oy12so9086368veb.26 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=J78dWDZoEAjC3g3bcM0pTZxa0OKGngkS7Mksm72Dxb0=; b=Kp51SATBEYPwfDxHY1ZuIEMn9Ugha63PSx0MyVryJljBy6Uiw/gb48D/LxAn7r6MyG HRSXakcwmtTQdfPJgA3ZdmblztmihAI2I8HU9pKQ+uEGArLI3gWz6UB00VP7tzcaWCnk dnbJoy6whvpUsDNppHbvOf+EXUuAr8/j3BMzDtnNhaYHNxxhjmAgOeN1D51zCAa07DZu Dsj3pJl+x2XbvN+QDdzImAlTrrePkjxPt+5bNBC2wlscwOnVr7NjnW/O1LIisGNVRL71 xdJok3GKeG3fIuA7k5GpNgYPkjehOSZwttV1ddgG8T97/Y/pQdHfIKnmMuoRL+pDzaFQ DcLg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.133.80 with SMTP id e16mr31344206vct.13.1395251325433; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.218.231 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1395241500.98778.YahooMailNeo@web28902.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1395241500.98778.YahooMailNeo@web28902.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:48:45 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Process question on release votes From: sebb To: general@incubator.apache.org, Mark Struberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 19 March 2014 15:05, Mark Struberg wrote: > what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the incubator pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a binding -1 ? IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding. However, even a binding -1 vote is not a veto - it is just a negative vote. But IMO it would be foolish for an RM to ignore a -1 vote. In PMCs that have been established some time, IME the expectation is that the RM will cancel the vote if the -1 appears to be justified. This means that PMC members who have already voted probably won't revote as a -1 even if they agree with the -1 (perhaps they overlooked that issue - not everyone can check every aspect of a release). If there is some doubt as to whether the -1 should really block the release, IMO the RM should follow up to explain why they think it is not a blocker. So either way, the -1 is resolved before the release proceeds. > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 4:10, David Nalley wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> While not specifically incubator related, was wondering if someone at >>> the incubator may provide me some insight. >>> >>> Right now, release votes cannot be veto'd. This seems like an >>> oversight IMHO. If a release candidate is visibly wrong (e.g. bad >>> licenses, or something else), surely the release candidate can be >>> veto'd no? >>> >> >>This is correct - release votes are not veto-able. >>In my opinion if you have a PMC whose members choose to ignore an >>obviously problematic release, especially from a licensing standpoint, >>then you have much bigger problems with the project. In my experience >>two factors come into play: >>1. The release manager, even with a vote that technically passes, will >>not proceed with a vote where there are obvious major problems, >>especially from a legal perspective. They cancel the vote on their own >>accord. No one wants a majorly flawed release shipping. >>2. Other PMC members heap on -1 votes if it remains open for any >>length of time, effectively causing the vote to fail to pass. >> >>If you can't get agreement on the obviously wrong candidate, perhaps >>it's not as obvious why its wrong. >> >>--David >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org