What I actually meant (sorry for not writing precisely) is why not call the 72-hour vote now and release it?
Cheers, Greg. > On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > Now that we have a release candidate (YEAH!), we need to sort out how > and when to vote on it. We have two proposals, copied from different > e-mails. > > Peter Firmstone: >> Voting on this release will commence in 4 weeks, to allow time for >> people to check they can reproduce these artifacts and test their >> code and report back with any issues. > > Greg Trasuk: >> Why not just go ahead and call the vote now? Once we have 3 ‘+1’s >> saying it meets the license requirements, then we can put it up on >> the main page. > > Each of these has possible problems. > > Peter's plan takes at least 31 days: 4 weeks followed by a minimum of 72 > hours for the vote. That may be longer than necessary. > > On the other hand, people who succeed in building and testing may be > ready to vote sooner than people who have problems, so we could hit > three +1 votes early, even if there would also have been three -1 votes. > A vote needs to have a definite time period. Also, releases are not > vetoed by -1 votes, but if anyone detects a serious problem we need to > stop and regroup, even if three PMC members have built and tested > successfully. > > I suggest a two phase process similar to Peter's plan, but without the > fixed time frame. Instead, anyone who plans to vote should record their > intent here, proceed with building and testing, and report their > results. Deal with any issues on a consensus basis - I'm hoping there > will be none because the issues have already been discussed. > > When most PMC members who plan to vote have reported success, we can > call an immediate 72 hour (or slightly longer) vote. > > Patricia
