What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote? This would be
similar to the changes done recently
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote followed by
J Aaron Farr wrote:
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Aaron Farrfa...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of
-1
I try to check my podlings' releases personally, but I usually fail
where Sebb shines :). It is much easier to guide the addition of new
committers/ppmc members than it is to properly vet a *first* release.
The first release of any podling is an exercise of patience and
frustration, but it
poddling release voting process
-1
I try to check my podlings' releases personally, but I usually fail
where Sebb shines :). It is much easier to guide the addition of new
committers/ppmc members than it is to properly vet a *first* release.
The first release of any podling is an exercise
for the first release
+1 for subsequent releases
Rainer
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Re: [DISCUSS] Changing poddling release voting process
-1
I try to check my podlings' releases personally, but I usually fail
where Sebb shines :). It is much easier to guide the addition of new
On 21 Aug 2009, at 08:58, ant elder wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we have now with a
poddling dev list vote followed by an general@ vote? This
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:40 AM, J Aaron Farrfa...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Niclas Hedhmannic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Aaron Farrfa...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri 21 Aug 2009 14:58, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
-1
AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
the podlings.
And they still would be as the only binding votes are from IPMC
members, and thats just the same as the situation with the poddling
new
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Rainer Döbeledoeb...@esteam.de wrote:
I agree with Martijn's view on the first release of a podling which is much
more critical than subsequent releases.
But for subsequent releases the voting process should be simplified in one
way or the other. At the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Jan Lehnardtj...@apache.org wrote:
On 21 Aug 2009, at 08:58, ant elder wrote:
What do people think about changing the poddling release voting
process so that there is just a single vote which is held on the
poddlings dev list instead of the dual voting we
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Niclas Hedhmannic...@hedhman.org wrote:
My concern is more that of 'complacent mentors'... How many people
vote +1 even if they have not scrutinized the release requirements?
IMHO, too
On 21/08/2009, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM, sebbseb...@gmail.com wrote:
-1
AIUI, all proposed releases must be voted on by the IPMC, not just by
the podlings.
And they still would be as the only binding votes are from IPMC
members, and
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
issue as its easy enough to check the latest release at graduation
time and vote against
On 21/08/2009, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
issue as its easy
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Martijn
Dashorstmartijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ant elderant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, if we do the making best practices a graduation requirement
instead of a release requirement that might alleviate the poor mentor
issue
19 matches
Mail list logo
