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 edited described the de facto practise of releases being blocked as long as there was a discussion going on. Re: 1. A possible blocker is discussed, and if there is no majority opinion apparent, a vote is called (as with all discussions under the new regime). This means that if only one PMC thinks something is a blocker, it will save time for that person to just give up and save the others the trouble and time a vote takes. Re: 2. Are you suggesting we don't allow work on 'develop' during a release? Re: 3. The language implies that, not? "should" does not equal "have to" or "need". Re: 4: The start of that sentence holds the information you are looking for... Re: 5: As stated only one paragraph earlier, if a discussion gets to lengthy it gets it's own thread. Re: 6: You're again reading and quoting out of context. The text describes only the final stages of the release, when (as it states just after your comment) everything but issues related to the creation of the release artefacts will have been long ironed out. It is intended to clarify that at that point any issues raised that are not blocking that actual release process (like missing/wrong signatures) will have to be deferred to the next release. How can that possibly be against Apache policy. The mere suggestion that is might be sounds like FUD to me :-( This was my last contribution to this discussion, and I don't want to get into an edit war on the Wiki, so I'll leave it up to the other contributors to sort this out. EdB On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > 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 make sure it > documented and clearly understood. It would be better to discuss and sort out > these issues up front rather than when we start using it. We also have to > very carefully check that it is in line with Apache release policies, I'm > still not convinced that this is the case with this new process. > > Thanks, > Justin -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
