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 approval" as that is what we are looking for, but I don't see an "edit" option after I've created my account. It's probably in a special state because it was just created.
I like the idea of working out the process definition a little to make it more official. I feel if we firm up the definition and continue to firm it up as we go along, this process stands a better chance of being successful. Chris On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > 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 to death on fixing bugs > and adding features instead. > > Is the article perfect? No. Does it need to be? Certainly not, > according to every PMC member and contributor that read it - all but > you, predictably, unfortunately and sadly :-( > > EdB > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > 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 publishing a release. (again all it requires > is a majority vote of 3 +1 and more +1s than -1s). 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 have concerns about a release process that seems on face value to be a > single vote only after consensus / agreement is reached and that treats any > "blockers" along the way as vetoes. It comes from good intentions (trying > to reducing the workload on the PMC) but may not be in alignment with > Apache release policy. > > > > Perhaps Bertrand or Rich would care to comment on this? > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > -- > Ix Multimedia Software > > Jan Luykenstraat 27 > 3521 VB Utrecht > > T. 06-51952295 > I. www.ixsoftware.nl >
