While I suppose consulting the PMC would have been appropriate, I disagree all votes, no matter what, should be open for 72 hours. In this case, a severe security fix release, we should allow a shorter time. Perhaps that would be 12 or 18 hours, but certainly no more than 24. Just because the fix took a few days to arrive doesn't mean we can afford to waste another 3 days just for process' sake.
Don On 7/28/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > In the interest of time, I would like to declare a quality grade on > > Struts 2.0.9 AS SOON AS we have received three binding votes toward > > one of the grades, and NOT WAIT the usual 72 hours! > </snip> > > I only just saw this - so basically this vote was effectively > concluded 52minutes after the test build was announced and vote called > (since thats when the 3rd +1 binding vote was received). > > I am -1 to holding votes in this way (i.e. as soon as I get 3 +1s) and > I am -1 to one person arbiatrily changing the usual procedure on the > fly at the point a vote is called. IMO all votes should be for a fixed > period of time (usually 72 hours). In this case I don't see why the > PMC could not have been consulted about reducing the period of time on > this vote - since AFAIK this issue has been ongoing for more than a > couple of weeks. > > Niall > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
