On 2/7/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it implies no such thing. A binding +1 for GA is a statement that you believe that the code is of a quality commensurate with a release to a general audience. It is not an implication of personal support or anything else. Further, a determination of GA status is up to each PMC member to make, and does not require anything in the way of deployment, production usage, or anything else of the sort.
From our bylaws:
"The act of voting carries certain obligations. Voters are not only stating their opinion, they are also agreeing to help do the work." * http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html I would suggest that the work of a GA release includes helping by applying patches and answering posts to the user list. Our language is taken from the HTTPD guidelines * http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html which also mentions that "On some issues, this vote is only binding if the voter has tested the action on their own system(s)." I would suggest that in terms of a vote on a GA release, this means that the voter is using the bits in production ("eating our own dog food"). The need for production testing is also mentioned in the HTTPD release guidelines. * http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html under "How can an RM be confident in a release?" Of course, it also says "each committer is free to come up with their own personal voting guidelines", which is why I used the word "implies" rather than a more concrete term like "means". If a PMC member is voting +1 on a GA, but hasn't used the release in production, or does not intend to support the release afterwards, personally, I'd like to know that, so that other volunteers are not left "holding the bag". -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
