Justin, I couldn't have twisted what I actually wrote any further out of context than you did, even if I tried really hard.
I refuse to be drawn into a 'blow-by-blow' rebuttal of your misunderstandings. I urge you to spend the time you intend to spend talking yet another well-intentioned effort to death on fixing bugs and adding features instead. Is the article perfect? No. Does it need to be? Certainly not, according to every PMC member and contributor that read it - all but you, predictably, unfortunately and sadly :-( EdB On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'll look at the changes and make some more edits later today if I some time. > >> I've changed 'consensus' to 'agreement' > > While consensus has a well defined meaning under Apache (especially in > voting), basically agreement means the same thing here. There is no > requirement for agreement for publishing a release. (again all it requires is > a majority vote of 3 +1 and more +1s than -1s). Perhaps "some agreement" or > "general agreement" is a better term? You may consider that an unnecessary > distinction but I really think that the PMC as a whole misses this rather > important point about releases. > > I have concerns about a release process that seems on face value to be a > single vote only after consensus / agreement is reached and that treats any > "blockers" along the way as vetoes. It comes from good intentions (trying to > reducing the workload on the PMC) but may not be in alignment with Apache > release policy. > > Perhaps Bertrand or Rich would care to comment on this? > > Thanks, > Justin -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
