Yeah, I looked with git blame and the 48 hour message was 5 year old, so asking just in case Apache changed it and we missed it. Didn’t know it was decided that long ago.
El El vie, 28 sept 2018 a las 17:45, Shazron <[email protected]> escribió: > FWIW the only reference I see for an emergency (security) patch vote > is here: https://httpd.apache.org/dev/voting.html#emergency for the > HTTP Server project. > However, that document is deemed obsolete. I believe it has been > superseded by the Security patch release process. > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:41 PM Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > To be honest I didn't expect the vote to end so fast especially with > > the notice "Voting will go on for a minimum of 48 hours." in the vote > > thread itself. > > If this was expressed as a duration of 24 hours and expressed as an > > emergency (I know it was implied, but for some rules are rules), I > > think we would have been fine with that -- but the vote did say 48 > > hours.On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:35 PM Shazron <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Jesse sums up what I would have said. We all agreed on the 48 hours > > > (somewhere way back), especially with our project with 60+ repos where > > > we were changing rapidly (not so much now of course), and 72 hours was > > > too late for a release. > > > > > > 48 seems to be a good midpoint for the rule to include people from all > > > geographic timezones. 72 hours would have been OK if we only had to do > > > one release, like the http server project (that was the genesis of the > > > foundation itself..) > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:21 PM Jesse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > These are guidelines. We make our own rules. The important part is > that we make sure we are inclusive of people all around the planet. > > > > > > > > A hotfix is a different situation, we need to get it out fast and > since it is not a significant change, a quick window should be fine. > > > > > > > > > [1] ... Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least > 72 hours to provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate > regardless of their geographic locations. ... > > > > > > > > ‘Generally’! > > > > We shortened this for releases at some point, there is probably a > vote thread back there somewhere. > > > > > > > > Note that 72 hours still applies to votes nominating new > pmc/committers. > > > > > > > > Going deeper, I see a trend where we question process and rules. I > find this to be a distraction from the actual work. I am of the mind that > we are all trustworthy, able to constructively and openly discuss things > and this formality can be a barrier to moving forwards. Maybe newer > committers need clearer guidelines and I have just been around too long to > be objective, that is a possibility too. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jesse > > > > > > > > [1] > https://www.apache.org/foundation/votinhttps://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotesg.html#ReleaseVotes > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2018, at 1:56 AM, julio cesar sanchez < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is being discussed in slack and github > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/cordova-coho/issues/202>, but I think > it belongs > > > > > to the mail list. > > > > > > > > > > There is a discrepancy in the duration of the votes. > > > > > > > > > > Apache states that: > > > > > Release votes SHOULD remain open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > But in coho vote templates we have: > > > > > Voting will go on for a minimum of 48 hours. > > > > > > > > > > Also both of them say "at least" or "a minimum", but not sure if > sometimes > > > > > there can be exceptions to speed things up. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
