incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:19:07 GMT
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:07 PM Marvin Humphrey <>

> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament <>
> wrote:
> > Ross,
> >
> > It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
> >
> > 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
> > asking for a 3rd IPMC vote.  This is not generally how things are done.
> A
> > new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
> > The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
> >
> > 2. This vote was never summarized.
> >
> > If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to
> where
> > I can find the email with the relevant information.
> John,
> Ripple is a podling that has had more than its share of challenges.  Can we
> please pursue solutions rather than enumerate trangressions?
> Even if the VOTE thread did not hew strictly to the template, the IPMC has
> been given a chance to review the release candidate and I would argue that
> the
> thread is within the letter of policy.  If we get an email to
> general@incubator closing the VOTE thread, I think we should call it a
> day and
> wish them hearty congratulations on their release.


Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not about to shoot this release down.  It's
an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
the [RESULT] emails).

We've had issues in the past where podlings with three active mentors all
vote +1 on the dev list and tried to announce the release.  This smells
like this approach, though I do appreciate that the contents were at least
put in front of the incubator.  The incubator has defined provisions to
allow for an alternate release process that gives the PPMC more governance
once they have a practice down.  I'd strongly recommend that any podling
who wants to follow that process attempt to adopt the 2013 Alternate Voting

I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
to close the vote thread.


> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message