On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Alan Gates <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know what the rules are for a BOM vote. > It seems close to a release vote, which would indicate a -1 is not a veto (ie > it's a majority vote). > > However, continuing down this path we'll end up with a -1 from Owen when it > comes time to release 0.4. > Releases are majority votes, but the rest of the IPMC is going to take a long > hard look if you have a -1 > from one of your mentors. I think it's in everyone's interest to work this > out now rather than ignore his -1 > only to bump into it again when it's time to release. I realize you feel his > -1 is unjustified. But simply > declaring it to be so and moving on will not make the issue go away.
Alan, I think what we're asking our mentors here is whether it would be ok for us to decouple and issue of releasing convenience binary artifacts from the rest of the discussion. IOW, suppose that this vote ONLY applies to the source releases of Bigtop (no binary artifacts involved whatsoever), we're asking Owen whether he would have the same concerns. If he does -- we would like to hear them articulated. That way, Bigtop community can move on working on the *source* of the Bigtop 0.4.0 release and mentors/incubator leadership/ASF board can spend time figuring out an ASF-wide policy for the binary convenience artifacts. Does that makes sense? Thanks, Roman.
