On 02/04/2019 13.58, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:30 AM Geertjan Wielenga
<geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
...Maybe the PPMC and IPMC vote could run in parallel...
I think the reason for having two votes is to give an opportunity for
mentors to catch issues in the first one without bothering the IPMC.
That, as well as the actual/target voting audience, including the PPMC
and the podling community, which more likely will also, and more so,
verify and validate the actual intended functionality (runtime) of
the release.
While the IPMC will be more/mostly focussed on the formal requirements
(license/notice files, dependencies, no binaries in source, etc.).
Running both votes in parallel definitely can be useful, but the
release manager then may want/need to take *both* vote results into
account in deciding the result (with +3 binding IPMC votes as a minimum
requirement).
So maybe run parallel votes from the third or fourth release on, to
keep the "noise filter" active initially.
Yes, or at least do the first release votes sequentially, and thereafter
opt for using parallel votes based on the advise from the mentors.
And it might still be recommended to do a sequential vote later on in
case of huge or major changes, for example after a big code donation
being incorporated.
Ate
This is similar to having to report monthly for the first three
months, then quarterly.
-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
