On 13 June 2016 at 10:04, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the few issues that Taverna has before graduation is getting VOTEs > done. When a TLP, the future-PMC is going to have to be able to muster the > necessary 3 votes for a releases. The active PPMC of Taverna is looking > minimal. > > 1/ What about this vote?
Thanks for raising this, Andy. I agree we need to be speedier on a VOTE - but I think it's fair that we have due review of the very first release of this particular code - e.g. we dropped a RC because of misleading copyright headers; which I think shows a functioning PMC. One thing I think is important is that we should not strive for code perfection, as a small project I am afraid we don't have that luxury. We should rather try to Release Early, Release Often. > 2/ How can the pool of active (P)PMC members be grown? We still need new members, but I think we also need to keep the existing PPMC members engaged. ASF processes come with.. well, some overhead. I guess that can be tiring sometimes. I know everyone is busy - perhaps the remaining part of the PPMC [1] could chip in on what we could do to get you to review/vote? :) Have we made the release process [2][3] too big? Or is it too much to review 3 artifacts at once? Note that everyone don't have to test everything on the list! [1] https://taverna.incubator.apache.org/about/ [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+How+to+Review+a+Release+and+Vote [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Details%3A+How+to+Review+a+Release -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
