When consolidating, you might also check that things are consistent with https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Isabel Am 20. März 2019 13:43:02 MEZ schrieb Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>: >Hi all, > >I’m currently working on finishing some things in preparation of >graduation … one thing we were requested to address, is to do an >assessment of the Apache Maturity Model for our project. > >Within this, there’s a rule: >CS40 - In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and >are justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting >rules defined in CS30. > >This sort of contradicts the rules for incubating projects specified by >the Incubator, which says: >https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines > >- Consensus >Approval<https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval> >– Consensus approval requires 3 >binding<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#binding-votes> +1 >votes and no -1 votes >(vetoes<https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto>). > >So for Consensus Approval there are Vetoes and code changes apply for >Lazy Consensus. If there are actually vetoes for code changes, I can >imagine that quite some projects would stall instantly. > > >The incubator guidelines state for adding (or removing) people to(or >from) committer and PPMC status, these guidelines claim them being >Consensus Approval, which allows vetoes. > >Would be cool if this could be streamlined to be more aligned. Right >now I claim that the PLC4X project simply fails CS40 as this >contradicts the incubator rules. > >Chris -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
