On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not everybody who is voting now provided context in the discussion thread. > You did. And I am sorry I did not understand it.
I'll try to be clearer. It's unnecessary for you to ask permission to roll a release containing (or omitting) the features you want. This vote is redundant with the release vote; it's an unnecessary formalism in our bylaws. If you want to release 2.0.5 with the features you want and assemble other community members to help stabilize it in a 2.0.x series... great. Do that. If the release vote passes and others want to add more features, then they can roll a new series in 2.1. If the vote on your artifact fails, then forward your "stability" agenda directly by reviewing and contributing code. If a set of contributors wants to support your agenda then they'll work on it, but if the developers aren't there then neither is the project. Again, we don't- we can't- assign work by voting. This is a poll, and a feckless one. I voted -1 because I find voting on an agenda that Arun will implement absurd, particularly when he disagrees with it. The result is meaningless, but losing this "vote" would at least conclude these debates. > Formally, bylaws void only vetos with no explanations. > So I agree it is not required in this vote as there are no vetos. > Wouldn't it be good to know though. Agreed, but this thread is absorbing that discussion because it hadn't reached consensus, or anything close to it. If consensus proves impossible and you still feel it's worth pressing the point, then create a branch, roll a release, and we'll vote on that artifact as coherent with the direction of the project. You don't need to ask for anyone's blessing, but you do need to convince others of your position. With that in mind, you may reconsider whether peers' code "destructive", "destabilizing" "junk" forwards your agenda most effectively. -C > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Konstantin Shvachko >> <shv.had...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > This is the voting thread, not the discussion one. >> > The discussion was going on the dev thread. >> [...] >> > Oh. And it would be good to have an explanation for -1 votes. >> > Only one negative vote came with a reason so far. >> >> As you point out, we have discussion threads because establishing >> intent in voting threads is ambiguous. Everyone voting in this thread >> provided context in the other, though no explanation is required. -C >>
