Adding my +1. With that the vote passed with 5 +1 votes from Jan, Piotr, Matt, Mikael[1], and myself. I will continue the retirement process[2].
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/w9mk1422701x4zfrj6zfgtobty0zn20m [2] https://logging.apache.org/processes.html On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:53 AM Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> wrote: > > As discussed earlier[1][2], I want to call a vote to retire[3] the > Log4j Scala API sub-project[4]. > > Please vote: > > [] +1, retire Log4j Scala API > [] -1, don't retire Log4j Scala API, because... > > Per Apache Voting Process[5], this is a "procedural issue", and > it follows the simple majority[6]. That is, if there are more +1 votes > than -1 ones, the issue is considered to have passed — regardless > of the number of votes in each category. > > PMC members have formally binding votes, but I encourage all > community members to vote, even if their votes are only advisory. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/1ktc1qxgwtnqd3zpshk017zfzfgkvp25 > [2] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/discussions/4021 > [3] https://logging.apache.org/processes.html > [4] https://logging.apache.org/log4j/scala > [5] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > [6] https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#SimpleMajority
