On 05/23/2012 11:32 AM, Alan Gates wrote: > > On May 22, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> 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? > I do not fully understand Owen's concerns and wouldn't presume to speak for > him. But in thinking about this one concern I have is the following. The > community votes on and reviews only source releases. I have no problem with > Bigtop including source code that packages non-Apache owned code. But the > community does not vote on or approve binary distributions. These are made > at the discretion of the release manager. I do have concerns with Bigtop > distributing non-Apache owned artifacts, as I have indicated in previous > emails. But after I vote for the source release, I have no ability to vote > against the binary distribution. So I am forced to vote against the source > release to prevent what I think is a bad binary distribution policy. So I > don't find it convincing to say this is only about the source release and not > about the binary distributions until we resolve the question of whether or > not Bigtop will be doing binary distributions of non-Apache owned software. > > Alan. > >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >
I would recommend to chime in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-605 so the source release and binary convenience artefacts can be decoupled in the discussion. Thanks, Bruno
