Richard, thanks for your feedback. That is all very important and I apologize for overlooking those things. And as a first release it's important we capture and document those steps to make future releases easier.
Thanks to those who voted but we'll cancel this vote and try again soon. Thanks, Jeff On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 3:00 AM Richard Eckart de Castilho <r...@apache.org> wrote: > On 12. Mar 2021, at 14:39, Jeff Zemerick <jzemer...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > This vote is to release the models as version 1.0. (The models are still > > available in the Dropbox folder at > > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p8focuz0qwvw84b/AAC6GqO8mqZn_xkAqHZsVAsoa?dl=0&lst= > > along with text files showing the training and evaluation results). > > As far as I can see, the files are not signed and cannot be validated for > authenticity. > There are no release notes, no information where the files come from, no > license > information, etc. The files are also no on ASF systems (cf. > https://infra.apache.org/release-publishing.html). > > I don't see how in this situation a release vote according to ASF > standards is possible. That is > a vote that: > > > A binding release vote of the PMC is the critical gating step in the > release process. Without such a vote, the release is just a set of files > prepared by an individual. After such a vote, it is a formal offering of > the ASF, backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Foundation. > > However, the voting thread "looks" official - so it looks like you aim for > such a proper release. > > I do not think the process should continue as is and should either be > restarted properly or > not take the appearance of being an official release process. > > -1 (non-binding) > > Cheers, > > -- Richard > >
