Hi Josh, thanks for the explanation … and yeah … it seems that even before my email, a new VOTE was on the way which indeed looked a lot better. Maybe even add an “RC1” to the subject-line … then you can be sure Ponymail doesn’t link threads together.
Would be good to see more people committing though, but less worried now. Chris Von: Joshua Poore <poor...@apache.org> Datum: Montag, 23. Oktober 2023 um 00:42 An: dev@flagon.apache.org <dev@flagon.apache.org>, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> Cc: bo...@apache.org <bo...@apache.org> Betreff: Re: Roll-Call for Apache Flagon Hi Chris— Sorry for the short response yesterday, just want to clarify things a bit: I just want to make sure the board understands that the VOTE in question wasn’t derelict over lack of PMC/community attention. Rather, the release managers are new to the process and didn’t annotate the VOTE subject with the RC # (although the details of each VOTE were compliant). I’ve been working to make sure that we have a viable Apache release and walk them through the process, however, they missed a comment I made about list etiquette in releases. The confusion emerges from the fact that the release manager spun new release candidates before the VOTE thread closes and initiated new VOTEs on the same thread—I don’t think I realized that these were being concatenated on the same thread until I looked at it on Pony mail. I think you’ll find in the final RC VOTE, our community participation was solid and we ended up with 5 VOTEs (w/ +3 Binding VOTES), and net participation of 6 community members. I’ve noted that the release managers should try and fork the various threads (you can also note that in some of the comments I made in the second RC VOTE), and capture resolutions with each different RC so we have a clean thread for each distinct VOTE. I have been working with them to train them up in the Apache process—that we have new PMC and committers participating in the release process is a great sign of community growth. Initial releases for new products are especially challenging, so the preponderance of comments have been encouraging and focused on things like ensuring license headers, etc. We’ll get the list cleaned on these VOTE threads. I hope this resolves any confusion. Josh > On Oct 21, 2023, at 5:27 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > wrote: > > Well … > > the plan is to keep the project going, if there are enough people active on > the project paying attention to things. > Not quite sure how to interpret your response though ;-) > Is that a “sure I’m here, ready to help”? > > If there’s only one person willing to work on the project, then it’s more on > a path to move to the Attic. > > Chris > > Von: Austin Bennett <aus...@apache.org> > Datum: Samstag, 21. Oktober 2023 um 20:24 > An: priv...@flagon.apache.org <priv...@flagon.apache.org> > Cc: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org>, dev@flagon.apache.org > <dev@flagon.apache.org> > Betreff: Re: Roll-Call for Apache Flagon > What's the plan? > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 10:39 AM lewis john mcgibbney > <lewi...@apache.org<mailto:lewi...@apache.org>> wrote: > I’m here. > lewismc > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 08:28 Christofer Dutz > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was tasked at the last board report to pursue a roll call for Apache Flagon > after we saw that a VOTE thread has currently been open for over 2 weeks with > only one vote (which was “-0”). > Also seeing that only 2 people have done any commits in the last few months > feels rather strange for a project that has been a TLP for only 7 months now. > > Please reply to this thread if you’re still willing and able to contribute to > this project. > > Thanks, > Chris
