On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:48 AM, sebb wrote: > On 19 March 2014 15:05, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: >> what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the >> incubator pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a >> binding -1 ? > > IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding. > However, even a binding -1 vote is not a veto - it is just a negative vote. > > But IMO it would be foolish for an RM to ignore a -1 vote. > > In PMCs that have been established some time, IME the expectation is > that the RM will cancel the vote if the -1 appears to be justified. > This means that PMC members who have already voted probably won't > revote as a -1 even if they agree with the -1 (perhaps they overlooked > that issue - not everyone can check every aspect of a release). > > If there is some doubt as to whether the -1 should really block the > release, IMO the RM should follow up to explain why they think it is > not a blocker. > > So either way, the -1 is resolved before the release proceeds.
Those projects are being foolish. If something bad is found that others also think is bad, they should change their vote to -1. Relying on the RM to make a decision like that just means they don't care and a good RM will go ahead and release based on the majority vote. There are also plenty of valid reasons for a -1 on a release that will occur frequently. The most common one is "I have just one more change I want to get in ...". The less common one is "I'll keep voting -1 on the release until you drop your veto on my favorite change." There are no vetos on releases. That is not an accident. Releases are majority decisions, as in a majority of folks on the PMC think that moving forward with X is better than waiting for Y. That's what the PMC has been empowered by the Board to decide. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
