On May 21, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > These are great points, Alan. > > It would be also great if you can help us to finally get the answers to the > questions raised in this thread wrt Owen's -1. We have tried to get a better > understanding of Owen's position and have narrowed it down to asking a pretty > binary yes/no kind of questions. The majority of the project contributors (and > the voting count shows it clearly) are in favor of doing this release in the > proposed state of the source code.
I agree we need clarity from Owen on what his concerns are. I'll encourage him to respond to those questions. > > My take is that members of this incubating project tried hard to resolve the > issues instead of simply plowing forward. However, the questions have remained > unanswered for more than 3 days and well after the closing of the official > vote. I don't think the community has to wait indefinitely before publishing > the voting decision. Clearly the community does not _have_ to wait. My encouragement is just that it is in our interest to wait and resolve this now. > > As it has been pointed out earlier in the separate discussion thread, an ASF > mentor's role is to help a podding project to move forward according to the > accepted Apache Foundation practices. And I am personally highly appreciate > your input to the matter and explanations about possible outcomes down the > road. Thanks. > > How do you suggest we can resolve this situation? What's the ASF way of > dealing with this sort of predicaments? Shall a person who raises certain > concerns openly defend his or her stance in order to resolve everything in a > timely and community oriented manner and finally answer direct questions? > > Please keep the input coming! Thanks > Cos > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 09:49PM, Alan Gates 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. >> >> On May 21, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >> >>> What's the official vote count? Can we move forward? >>> >>> Considering that the only -1 here has never been granted a reasonable >>> factual >>> explanation, it doesn't seem like a valid -1 after all. >>> >>> Let's move forward >>> Cos >>> >>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:19PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I would like to put the following BOM and list of supported >>>>> platforms for a vote. The vote will run till noon PST on Fri >>>>> 5/18. Please vote by that time. >>>> >>>> The vote is now officially closed. Thanks to everybody who voted. >>>> >>>> Before I publish the final tally, though, I'd like to clarify Owen's vote >>>> by asking the following questions. >>>> >>>> Owen, could you, please be so kind as to answer just yes or no: >>>> >>>> 1. Are you voting against Bigtop including source code that will >>>> make it possible to build/deploy/validate Hue? >>>> >>>> 2. Are you voting against Bigtop publishing convenience artifacts >>>> that will include Hue? >>>> >>>> 3. Do you realize that #1 and #2 are fundamentally different issues? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Roman. >>
