On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a > binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases > without having to go through general@ > > While I find it very helpful and valuable for first time releases (and > first time release managers) to go to general@ the first time, > consecutive releases could go a lot smoother if Mentor votes were all > that is required. > > The current policy states: > >> Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the >> Podling SHALL >> hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three +1 votes are >> required (see the >> Apache Voting Process page). If the majority of all votes is positive, then >> the Podling >> SHALL send a summary of that vote to the Incubator's general list and >> formally request >> the Incubator PMC approve such a release. Three +1 Incubator PMC votes are >> required. > > So there's not much leeway here. Although the three +1 incubator PMC > votes are often already satisfied. > > Martijn >
There have been numerous releases where we have not followed exactly that process, two other common approaches these days seem to be: - the email to general@ says they already have three IPMC +1 votes on the poddling dev list, there may or may not be comments on the general@ thread and the release is done anyway after 3 days - the initial vote email is CC'ed to both the poddling dev list and general@ and the vote result is tallied from both lists and there may or may not have been votes on general@ Both of those approaches seem ok to me and I'd be fine with a simpler and more flexible policy, perhaps saying that the main thing is that general@ must be notified. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
