> In fact, I did take the time to properly examine the artifacts and vote on
> that RC. One of the reasons I did that was to make it more likely that
> folks like Om who may not have the time to re-examine the artifacts would
> feel more comfortable allowing a carryover of their vote. The only two
> changes in this RC were both text-based, a corrected URL in the NOTICE and
> an unrelated change to an XML config file. Everyone had the opportunity
> to review the commit that changed the NOTICE, and if Justin and I both
> claim the corrected NOTICE is in the artifacts, I and most others thought
> that would be sufficient oversight. Alex, you bring up a good point here and
> I too remember that was the case in the thread as I read both you and Justin
> qualified the NOTICE was okay. I feel more comfortable with not having the
> specific language about PMC votes not able to carry over as described in my
> suggested edit to the less-RC [1] page. Timing of when the "carry over"
> request was made is important to note as that bring better context to the
> situation. I do feel that we as a group will do our best to make sure legal
> stuff does not get missed, and we should be able to rely on the quality of
> work others provide to the group. I agree and would like to give our
> community the ability to carry over votes.
However, after writing all of that, I think it'd be good to maintain a clear
image to those outside the Apache Flex community that they can be assured that
even in a secondary RC, key members of the community will verify that
everything is okay. And that clarity can come from either the consistency of
our actions or wording in process pages.
I am still on the fence regarding wording for the change. At this time i'll
vote:
+0 binding
As I agree with the spirit of the change and I am very confident that the team
will figure out the detail of the language or even if any would be required.
[1]
http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Allow-RC-votes-to-carry-over-at-any-point-in-the-release-process-td43079.html#a43109
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
> process
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:54:21 +0000
>
>
>
> On 12/5/14, 11:22 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/05/2014 07:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >>
> >>> Being the RM and making a release has a legal responsibility. I don't
> >>> think we should be forcing the RM to be doing anything that has
> >>>potential
> >>> legal issues. The incident that this VOTE has arisen from was about
> >>> changing NOTICE and then making a release without the required PMC
> >>> oversight and that certainly fits into this (slightly scary) category.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Although I don't have a vote here, as an ASF member I have to agree with
> >> Justin's assessment here.
> >>
> >> Given that a release only requires 3 +1 votes, it shouldn't be a
> >>hardship
> >> to vote again. Having a vote "carry over" only seems to make sense if,
> >> indeed, nothing changed. If something changes, it's reasonable to ask
> >> people to have a look before they vote.
> >
> >
> >This is again a case of misleading characterization of the issue in hand.
>
> In fact, I did take the time to properly examine the artifacts and vote on
> that RC. One of the reasons I did that was to make it more likely that
> folks like Om who may not have the time to re-examine the artifacts would
> feel more comfortable allowing a carryover of their vote. The only two
> changes in this RC were both text-based, a corrected URL in the NOTICE and
> an unrelated change to an XML config file. Everyone had the opportunity
> to review the commit that changed the NOTICE, and if Justin and I both
> claim the corrected NOTICE is in the artifacts, I and most others thought
> that would be sufficient oversight.
>
> -Alex
>
