Re: [VOTE] does mod_python want to be a TLP
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: The vote shall be open 72 hours or until all of the mod_python core group members have voted, whichever is earlier. Well, I didn't get enough responses, so this will have to wait until after folks figure out what to do next. Roy
Re: [VOTE] does mod_python want to be a TLP
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: Hi Roy, +1 approve requesting a mod_python TLP +2 to the alterative: approve requesting a python TLP I think that would be fine, except you will have to come up with a name that is not Apache Python Project. That is essentially a trademark infringement and I know the Perl community doesn't like the way we named Perl-Apache either. Java became Jakarta for the same reason. Roy
Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: When the core group votes for a release candidate, is it a consensus vote or a majority vote? To quote from the Apache voting guidelines, An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetos. An action item requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes (i.e., a majority with a minimum quorum of three positive votes). Release votes are majority votes. That prevents some forms of voting abuse and allows progress to be made even when it isn't perfect. My interpretation of the rest of guideline is that a consensus vote is only required for actual code changes. Perhaps we should set our own policy for a vote on a release candidate? See http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html. If this is a majority vote, then the polls are closed and 3.2.7 is the winner. :) (And I didn't even use a calulator this time. ;) ) We usually wait for 72 hours or until all the voters vote, since some times it only takes one discovered failure to cause everyone else to change their votes. Roy
board report for HTTP server project
Much to my surprise, I apparently have a board report due yesterday for this Wednesday's board meeting. Do we have any ASF issues that need reporting to the board, aside from what is in STATUS*? Any choice commentary? Does anyone else feel like we have too many dev lists for one project? Roy
