Hi, > You are actively discouraging non-PMC members to participate in the > release process by repeatedly explaining how their votes are worth > nothing.
Really? I had added "although others are also encouraged to vote." and only PMC votes are binding on releases, we shouldn't state otherwise. > You have edited the paragraph that talks about the 'old' release > process to read as if it were part of the new proposal. I corrected it where I thought it was needed. > Re: 1. A possible blocker is discussed, and if there is no majority > opinion apparent, a vote is called The was no mention of a vote in fact voting is actively discouraged until the last RC. This happened with the last TourDeFlex release and it was left in limbo for a while because of this. Now however you saying you can vote along the way, so how exactly is this different to the current release process how? In that we we get a blocker it's discussed and a new RC created and voted on. > Re: 2. Are you suggesting we don't allow work on 'develop' during a release? No. > Re: 3. The language implies that, not? "should" does not equal "have > to" or "need". I think "should" is a little too strong here. > Re: 4: The start of that sentence holds the information you are looking for... So voting is the answer? Again why not stick to the currently process which handles that quite well? > Re: 5: As stated only one paragraph earlier, if a discussion gets to > lengthy it gets it's own thread. Seams reasonable. > Re: 6: How can that possibly be against Apache policy. It's the PMC who decides by voting that a release should be made not the RM. Thanks, Justin
