The wiki page had become annotated with issue discussions. I just rewrote
the entire document, trying to make it shorter, removing history and
rationale and just describing the steps, but addressing/clarifing issues
raised. I left the original document below so you can compare and make
sure your
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > You interpreted it wrong. That voter thought non-binding meant a -1
> vote.
> > Please read that email carefully.
>
> I don't think so, but either way, it shows the need for clarity around
> who's votes are binding. I notice the li
Hi,
> You interpreted it wrong. That voter thought non-binding meant a -1 vote.
> Please read that email carefully.
I don't think so, but either way, it shows the need for clarity around who's
votes are binding. I notice the link was edited in the Wiki to include all the
content and not just l
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Are you referring to this post? [1]
>
> Yes.
>
> > The poster just thought that non-binding meant he voted against the
> > release, not whether his vote counted or not.
>
> My reading of that post was that he assumed his +1 counted
Hi,
> Are you referring to this post? [1]
Yes.
> The poster just thought that non-binding meant he voted against the
> release, not whether his vote counted or not.
My reading of that post was that he assumed his +1 counted and was surprised
when it didn't and was saying "but I voted for it wh
> I made a minor edit to the small print to include a note that PMC votes
are counted as binding. Hopefully
> that completes the definition of "Majority Approval" for our group.
Well that was fast. Hehe, so I thought the "here" link was pointing to the
definition of "Majority Approval", not the
Hey everyone,
I made a minor edit to the small print to include a note that PMC votes are
counted as binding. Hopefully that completes the definition of "Majority
Approval" for our group.
I welcome any edits to the above, as I'm still the new guy here ;)
Also made my replies to the numbered iss
On 12/4/14, 2:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> No need for a solution since there is no problem. What exactly is the
>> issue you are trying to solve? Who do you think needs this
>>clarification?
>
>Currently as it reads is that votes on release are "Majority Approval",
>that's correct
On Dec 5, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> IMO would be a good idea to make it clear.
What’s not clear about the following?
The Small Print
All votes mentioned on this page are as defined on the official voting page
here[1].
[1]http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Hi,
> No need for a solution since there is no problem. What exactly is the
> issue you are trying to solve? Who do you think needs this clarification?
Currently as it reads is that votes on release are "Majority Approval", that's
correct/good but not the whole picture. If a committer or user
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > There is a link to
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval which
> has
> > the correct definitions.
>
> It exmplain what "Majority Approval" is but not that only PMC vote are
> binding. Perhaps a solution
Justin, it is not clear whose email you are responding to. Can you please
clarify?
Thanks,
Om
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > You are actively discouraging non-PMC members to participate in the
> > release process by repeatedly explaining how their votes are w
Hi,
> There is a link to
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval which has
> the correct definitions.
It exmplain what "Majority Approval" is but not that only PMC vote are binding.
Perhaps a solution is to add a link to our own guidelines with a link to voting
on rele
Hi,
> You are actively discouraging non-PMC members to participate in the
> release process by repeatedly explaining how their votes are worth
> nothing.
Really? I had added "although others are also encouraged to vote." and only PMC
votes are binding on releases, we shouldn't state otherwise.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I think I’ve edited the page to take care of Justin’s concerns without
> it being too “in your face”…
>
> I'm not sure of removal of any reference to the PMC is correct, only PMC
> members votes are binding on releases.
>
>
There is
That’s the “small print” on the bottom. If someone does not know what a vote
is, they can read the link. It’s all explained in detail.
On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:00 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I think I’ve edited the page to take care of Justin’s concerns without it
>> being too “in your f
Hi,
> I think I’ve edited the page to take care of Justin’s concerns without it
> being too “in your face”…
I'm not sure of removal of any reference to the PMC is correct, only PMC
members votes are binding on releases.
Thanks,
Justin
I think I’ve edited the page to take care of Justin’s concerns without it being
too “in your face”…
On Dec 4, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> You are actively discouraging non-PMC members to participate in the
> release process by repeatedly explaining how their votes are worth
> nothi
> Done. I've also marked up what I think the issues are with this approach.
I’ve responded to all the issues with my point of view.
Thanks,
Harbs
You are actively discouraging non-PMC members to participate in the
release process by repeatedly explaining how their votes are worth
nothing.
You have edited the paragraph that talks about the 'old' release
process to read as if it were part of the new proposal. It is not. The
text you have edit
Hi,
> Cool - so it looks like there's no need to discuss this further, until
> Justin makes those edits and reports here that he's happy with the
> result.
Done. I've also marked up what I think the issues are with this approach.
If we are going to introduce a new release procedure, we need to m
As a PMC I'm very much aware of the Apache voting rules, as a project
we have codified them in our guidelines. I very much resent the
implication from Justin that I am not familiar with them :-(
On the article: Justin has really taken this whole discussion way out
of context, as the paragraph he k
Hey everyone,
Thanks Bertrand for the info. At some point I think we should change the
wording to be more of what we intend. Mainly
because Bertrand makes a good point by pointing out a "burden of defining
your own variants" is being made. I actually registered to change agreement
to "majority ap
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...I'll look at the changes and make some more edits later today if I some
> time
Cool - so it looks like there's no need to discuss this further, until
Justin makes those edits and reports here that he's happy with the
result.
Justin,
Justin,
I couldn't have twisted what I actually wrote any further out of
context than you did, even if I tried really hard.
I refuse to be drawn into a 'blow-by-blow' rebuttal of your
misunderstandings. I urge you to spend the time you intend to spend
talking yet another well-intentioned effort t
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...Perhaps "some agreement" or "general agreement" is a better term? You may
> consider
> that an unnecessary distinction but I really think that the PMC as a whole
> misses this
> rather important point about releases
I was going
Hi Justin,
Please don’t read too much into things. We all agree that a vote is 3 +1 votes.
“Agreement” does not mean anything more than that.
Of course if it’s reasonable to address issues even beyond the “binding” votes,
I’d assume that a reasonable effort would be done to do that.
Like I sai
Hi,
I'll look at the changes and make some more edits later today if I some time.
> I've changed 'consensus' to 'agreement'
While consensus has a well defined meaning under Apache (especially in voting),
basically agreement means the same thing here. There is no requirement for
agreement for
I've changed 'consensus' to 'agreement' and removed the bit about the
reporter doing the fix.
Justin, thank you for your contribution. Please keep in mind this is
not a legal document, only a rough outline of a process.
Now let's move on, I'm sure everyone will agree more than enough time
has bee
Understood.
Go tweak the wording on the wiki until you’re happy that it reads correctly. I
don’t think anyone would have issues with that.
If anyone wants to then tweak it further, great. That’s what wikis are for! ;-)
On Dec 3, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I don’t thin
Hi,
> I don’t think Erik was trying to be so precise with his wording.
I just want to make sure we're not trying to introduce consensus for releases
via this new process. It really needs to be made clear that releases are by
majority approval only (ie 3+1 more +1s than -1s) not consensus (3 +1s
Justin,
I don’t think Erik was trying to be so precise with his wording. I think we’re
all aware of policy already.
Why don’t you fix any wording you feel is inaccurate? If anyone has issues with
your corrections, the wording can be reverted and/or discussed.
Thanks,
Harbs
On Dec 2, 2014, at
Hi,
I'd like to see a few corrections/changes to this process as described.
Re "packaged and signed by a representative of the organization and voted to be
valid by the contributors of the project." - as per Apache policy anyone can
make a release (but it would be hard if you were not a committ
branch and cherry picked onto the release one
> avoiding a merge back to the dev branch ?
> A nice article too [1] btw !
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
> [1] http://producingoss.com/fr/stabilizing-a-release.html
>
>> From: e...@ixsoftware.nl
>> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09
nch ?
A nice article too [1] btw !
Frédéric THOMAS
[1] http://producingoss.com/fr/stabilizing-a-release.html
> From: e...@ixsoftware.nl
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:19:34 +0100
> Subject: Re: The 'less-RC' process explained
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Excellen
.
>>
>>-Mark
>>
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl]
>>Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 5:07 AM
>>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>Subject: The 'less-RC' process explained
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I
ke it's doable and shows similarities to other development
>projects I have seen. But with a lot less steps.
>
>-Mark
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl]
>Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 5:07 AM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
+1
Looks like it's doable and shows similarities to other development projects I
have seen. But with a lot less steps.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 5:07 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: The &#x
Sounds like we've got a plan. Lets take this baby for another test spin
and see how she handles ;)
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Harbs wrote:
> Nice, clear concise, explanation.
>
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've put an initial draft for an explanati
Nice, clear concise, explanation.
On Dec 1, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've put an initial draft for an explanation of the 'less-RC' process
> into the Wiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2oH0Ag
>
> Please take a look and see if that properly summarizes the
Hi,
I've put an initial draft for an explanation of the 'less-RC' process
into the Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2oH0Ag
Please take a look and see if that properly summarizes the previous
discussions we've had.
Thanks,
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 V
41 matches
Mail list logo
