Geee ... why does everything have to go around in circles here? Is it always
about having the last word? At least it feels this way.
(and yes, by replying I'm participating. I do see that, but I just wanted to
get back on track ... and having started the discussion I felt I should)
In this case I think it doesn't matter how SHOULD should be interpreted and
what any official rules are.
If you write: "the vote will stay open for 72 hours" ... well then you
shouldn't close it early IMHO no matter what reasons.
If you write in the VOTE email "the vote will stay open for as long as it takes
to get a majority of active PMCs to vote" then you probably don't have to.
Otherwise I'd just strip the "the vote will stay open for 72 hours" from the
VOTE email, if you're not planning on respecting it.
But I guess it's me being a German ... you can't imagine how things escalate
here if a Bus arrives (and leaves) the bus stop a few seconds too early.
A fresh toilet paper delivery at the local supermarket is nothing compared to
that ;-)
Chris
Am 16.04.20, 08:25 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
I think you misunderstood what Alex wrote.
We already had 4 +1 votes. Considering most of the active PMC members
already weighed in on the release, the chances of there being more -1 votes
than +1 votes is slim to none. That was the intent when mentioning most of the
active PMC. No one meant to infer that a vote of half the PMC means anything.
I already linked to the legal definition of SHOULD lower down (or at least
a link which mentions the definition).
I’ll note that Alex already mentioned that we’d be stricter on a “full”
release which is something which I think we’re all in agreement with.
So, no need to be concerned. :-)
Thanks,
Harbs
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 12:11 AM, Justin Mclean <jmcl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The vote is not based on the majority of the active PMC, nor does it pass
if more than half of the PMC vote. You can get non-binding votes from users
that might bring up important issues and be useful to take into consideration.
>
> The words SHOULD, MUST etc are used as defined in RFC 2119 [1]. SHOULD
means the following:
> "3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.”
>
> In this case I don’t think any harm has been done, but please take care
on future votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> 1. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
