hi folks, As a reminder, particularly since we have many new community members (some of whom have never been involved with an ASF project before), releases are approved exclusively by the PMC and in general releases cannot be vetoed. In spite of that, we strive to make releases that have unanimous (either by explicit +1 or lazy consent) support of the PMC. So it is better to have unanimous 5 +1 votes than 6 +1 votes with a -1 dissenting vote.
On the 0.14.0 vote, as with previous release votes, some issues with the release were raised by members of the community, whether build or test-related problems or other failures. Technically speaking, such issues have no _direct_ bearing on whether a release vote passes, only on whether PMC members vote +1, 0, or -1. A PMC member is allowed to change their vote based on new information -- for example, if I voted +1 on a release and then someone reported a serious licensing issue, then I would revise my vote to -1. On the RC0 vote thread, Jacques wrote [1] "A release vote should last until we arrive at consensus. When an issue is potentially identified, those that have voted should be given ample time to change their vote and others that may have been lazy consenters should be given time to chime in. There is no maximum amount of time a vote can be open. Allowing at least 24 hours after an objection is raised is a pretty minimum expectation unless the objector removes their objection. Note that Apache is more focused on consensus than timing (as opposed to virtually other other organizations in the world)." I agree with this and my opinion is that in future releases we should institute a minimum 24-hour "quiet period" after any community feedback on a release candidate to allow issues to be examined further. If someone finds a potential problem, and no negative votes are cast or changed, then the vote can close. As a related matter, it seems clear to me that Apache Arrow should have more frequent releases. I think this would decrease pressure on developers and users alike. While we've made strides to improve the tooling for release management (big thanks to Kou, Yosuke, Krisztian, and others), there is still quite some labor involved and potential for issues (e.g. API rate limiting for binary artifacts on Bintray). To be able to release more often, two things have to happen: * More PMC members must engage with the release management role, process, and tools * Continued improvements to release tooling to make the process less painful for the release manager. For example, it seems we may want to find a different place than Bintray to host binary artifacts temporarily during release votes Any other ideas for things we can do to improve the process and cadence of releases? Thanks, Wes [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be6210e97b838494a5516dad6408f479efe4c98aff805000597c0196@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
