On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:53:09PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > Greg Marr wrote: > > > > I read that last sentence as: "An issue becomes a showstopper when > > it is listed as such in STATUS, and remains one until someone vetoes > > it, at which time it is no longer a showstopper. ..." > > I think that's bogus, too. If someone thinks something is serious > enough to stop a release, they should be no more overridable than > any other block (read: veto). I find the idea of being able > to veto a showstopper completely ludicrous. :-)
And I completely agree with you, Ken. But as I pointed out in my previous email, I think this is already covered by our release guidelines. If a simple majority of people would still vote +1 for a release while a particular issue was a showstopper, then by definition it should no longer be a showstopper. In all other cases, it shall remain a showstopper. Example: I add a showstopper to STATUS. One other person says "-1, that's not a showstopper". By my interpretation of the rules, they CANNOT demote it from showstopper until there are enough people who would vote to release (more +1s than -1s). This means that in order to demote it, there would have to be two -1s to offset my +1. If this is any clearer than what we have in the guidelines, I propose we include similiar verbage. -aaron
