See policy: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval <http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>
3 vote majority is MUST. Individuals verifying by building is REQUIRED. 72 hours is SHOULD. So you see there is room to maneuver on the latter. Julian > On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > Understood. > > For projects that are in alpha stage, would it be reasonable to relax > the voting requirement to a 1 day vote period, where at least 1 PMC > member must vote to approve (rather than the 3 vote requirement)? > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I personally don't have a problem with subcomponents publishing >>> artifacts to package managers outside of the primary Apache project >>> votes and releases, so long as they clearly signal that these package >>> builds are for development and not voted-on artifacts published on >>> behalf of the PMC. Does this seem reasonable? >> >> I can see how this would be useful, but it is in breach of Apache policy. In >> Apache there is no “publish” process other than the release process. >> >> People can of course build directly from git. >> >> Some projects have snapshots and nightly builds inside of apache (for >> running tests and so forth) but they shouldn’t publish externally or >> advertise these as permanent in any way. >> >> If we need to make an alpha release say twice a week, let’s do that. We can >> change policy to expedite the voting process, I believe. >> >> Julian >>
