Forwarding to general@ in a separate email is better than cc'ing as it avoids reply-to's going to the wrong list. You should be able to forward your last mail with the [RESULT][VOTE].
Alan. On Apr 10, 2013, at 5:27 AM, Kevin Minder wrote: > Chris, > What form does the general@incubator notification usually take. I've searched > around but I don't really see a pattern. Should I have just included > general@incubator in the [RESULT][VOTE] email? Also, how do I ensure that it > gets some legal review of the LICENSE and NOTICE files in particular? > Kevin. > > On 4/3/13 1:39 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote: >> You're totally allowed to VOTE! >> >> I'm totally swamped right now, BTW :) >> >> Hope to review this before the end of the week. >> >> Kevin, once you have 3 IPMC members here that have responded >> with +1s you can technically call the VOTE done, and send >> to general@incubator just to let them know (and leave open >> for lazy consensus 72 hours then after that wrap the VOTE). >> If we don't get 3 IPMC members here on dev@knox to respond, >> then we need to go to general@incubator regardless to look >> for 3-(# of IPMC members who have voted on dex@knox) VOTEs. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Senior Computer Scientist >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 >> Email: [email protected] >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kevin Minder <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:39 AM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Knox (Incubator) 0.2.0 >> >>> Note sure if I'm allowed to vote but... >>> >>> 1. I verified hashes and signatures >>> 2. Performed manual sanity testing and ran a few samples. >>> >>> +1 (if I'm allowed as the RM) >>> >>> On 4/3/13 8:16 AM, larry mccay wrote: >>>> Signature verified - I assume that the fact that the key is untrusted >>>> as of >>>> yet is okay. >>>> Manual testing seems fine. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Kevin Minder >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> A candidate for the Apache Knox (Incubator) 0.2.0 release is available >>>>> at: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**kminder/knox/0.2.0/<http://people.apache.org >>>>> /~kminder/knox/0.2.0/> >>>>> >>>>> The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/**repos/asf/incubator-knox.git<https://git >>>>> -wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-knox.git> >>>>> Branch 0.2.0 (git checkout -b v0.2.0) >>>>> >>>>> The SHA1 checksum of the source archive is >>>>> 73a6b5282ba32c3fbce330158861fd* >>>>> *0c04e5a992. >>>>> >>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Knox (Incubator) 0.2.0. >>>>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at >>>>> least three +1 Apache Knox (Incubator) PMC votes are cast. >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Knox (Incubator) 0.2.0 >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... >>>>> >
