On Dec 12, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Marvin, > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> > wrote: >> I also went another round on the Manifest template and the Release Procedure >> section of the guide (not yet committed): https://paste.apache.org/a1ya ... > > Looks good to me but why "it must be approved by a Mentor (who must > also be an Apache Member" ?
Another rule is better than my straw man. Marvin really missed my point - which was 3 IPMC is the way it is done and I don't see a need to change. (Yes I know podlings can't get release votes ... with this rule I will lay odds we will start to see active -1 VOTEs from IPMC members on releases when there is any flaw. With the rule of VOTE at 3 +1 and the rest at 1 +1.) I think we have to have a way for IPMC members to VOTE -1 on releases after the first... > > We do have mentors who are not members, and that's fine IMO. Yes it is. It is very fine. I LIKE this process in all aspects except this change in the 3 +1 from the IPMC rule. Can the VOTE separate the two experiments? (1) Vote +1/-1 for the Release Verification Checklist experiment (2) Vote +1/-1 for the 1 +1 Mentor/IPMC for releases after the first release by a podling. Regards, Dave > > -Bertrand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
