Justin, it is not clear whose email you are responding to. Can you please clarify?
Thanks, Om On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > You are actively discouraging non-PMC members to participate in the > > release process by repeatedly explaining how their votes are worth > > nothing. > > Really? I had added "although others are also encouraged to vote." and > only PMC votes are binding on releases, we shouldn't state otherwise. > > > You have edited the paragraph that talks about the 'old' release > > process to read as if it were part of the new proposal. > > I corrected it where I thought it was needed. > > > Re: 1. A possible blocker is discussed, and if there is no majority > > opinion apparent, a vote is called > > The was no mention of a vote in fact voting is actively discouraged until > the last RC. This happened with the last TourDeFlex release and it was left > in limbo for a while because of this. Now however you saying you can vote > along the way, so how exactly is this different to the current release > process how? In that we we get a blocker it's discussed and a new RC > created and voted on. > > > Re: 2. Are you suggesting we don't allow work on 'develop' during a > release? > > No. > > > Re: 3. The language implies that, not? "should" does not equal "have > > to" or "need". > > I think "should" is a little too strong here. > > > Re: 4: The start of that sentence holds the information you are looking > for... > > So voting is the answer? Again why not stick to the currently process > which handles that quite well? > > > Re: 5: As stated only one paragraph earlier, if a discussion gets to > > lengthy it gets it's own thread. > > Seams reasonable. > > > Re: 6: How can that possibly be against Apache policy. > > It's the PMC who decides by voting that a release should be made not the > RM. > > Thanks, > Justin
