On Jan 16, 2008 10:47 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (1) If as you say Niall "votes are votes", then that SHOULD mean that > non-binding voters can veto a release, but the bylaws say differently: > "3 binding +1 votes" and "no binding vetos" is the benchmark to whether > a action passes or not. It doesn't say "3 +1 votes from anyone", nor > does it say "no vetos from anyone", it specifically spells out binding > votes. Non-binding votes are not officially considered in other words.
Nobody can veto a release. It's a majority vote action not a consensus vote action. A release quality vote would only fail if there is not a quorum of three +1 binding votes, or if there are more binding -1s than binding +1s. We don't "count" non-binding votes, but most of us would take them into consideration. If I'm on the fence, and a number of contributors cast +1 non-binding votes, then I'm more likely to cast my binding vote for GA. The inverse is also true. We publish the project guidelines (or "by laws") to cover the common cases, so that we don't have to have these types of discussions every time we create a release. We're not trying to be legalistic, we're just trying to get the work done. Since everyone here is a volunteer, there's no way to enforce an obligation, and the ASF guidelines remind us of this. A vote is an opinion, not a commitment. The key thing to me is what are the expectations of the commiters when we vote +1 on a GA release. Right now, the general feeling is that a +1 GA vote doesn't indicate that the committer will have the bandwidth available to support the release. Meaning, if I want to ask about that, we need to ask in a different context. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
