On Dec 8, 2014 11:59 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright. I just removed the entire line. It jives with what Bertrand suggested anyways. > > Let’s try to avoid “carried votes” and just go with simplified revoting… > > From my perspective we’ve spent more than enough time on a really insignificant issue.
+1 Thanks, Om > > On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Crud, Unfortunately, I didn’t like either offering. It can’t be the > > “same” due diligence since the requestor didn’t examine the current > > artifacts. I say we either: > > > > 1) remove it entirely. This simplifies the guidelines but may complicate > > a situation where we don’t have enough voters with enough time. Maybe we > > should gamble on that and discuss carryover should we ever need it. > > 2) Require that folks requesting carry over state how they conclude the > > bits are good (based on git logs, reports from those who did vote, maybe > > that they didn’t agree the issue was critical in the first place). This > > would provide a “paper trail”. > > 3) Not have any additional sentence per my first proposal and trust folks > > to use carryover properly > > 4) Keep trying to find better words. > > 5) Go with Erik’s version anyway. > > > > Right now I like option #1. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 12/8/14, 11:11 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > > > >> I had to read the 'oversight' line twice to catch it's meaning. I have > >> suggested an alternative, please take a look. > >> > >> EdB > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Done. I added a sentence defining “carrying” as “oversight”. > >>> > >>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Maybe I’m being too picky, but the vote proposal said: "I suggest that > >>>> at > >>>> any point in the release process a vote should be carried over if the > >>>> person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry over.” > >>>> > >>>> The current wiki version says: "The release manager can carry over of > >>>> votes from previous release candidates to the new release candidate if > >>>> changes between release candidates contain no code changes or changes > >>>> to > >>>> legally significant documents.” > >>>> > >>>> I would suggest either removing that section entirely and hoping we > >>>> always > >>>> have enough folks willing to re-check, or re-wording to: “If a PMC > >>>> member > >>>> voted on a release candidate, and the release manager creates a new > >>>> one, > >>>> the PMC member can state that they want their vote to be carried over”. > >>>> > >>>> And I would suggest moving that point below the one that says that you > >>>> don’t have to re-check everything (since re-checking changes is > >>>> preferred). > >>>> > >>>> I wouldn't put any qualifications on what changes do or don’t qualify > >>>> for > >>>> carryover. I trust each PMC member to be a good judge of when a > >>>> carryover > >>>> is proper, and we can avoid later arguments on what constitutes a code > >>>> change. > >>>> > >>>> -Alex > >>>> > >>>> On 12/8/14, 2:18 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I don’t see my last two emails in the archives. Sorry if this is going > >>>>> out more than once… > >>>>> > >>>>> Here is a link to the modified wiki.[1] I think the changes are pretty > >>>>> minor… I removed mention of carried votes from the voting timeframe > >>>>> section, and clarified the wording in the “Product Release” section. > >>>>> > >>>>> Harbs > >>>>> > >>>>> [1]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ix Multimedia Software > >> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 > >> 3521 VB Utrecht > >> > >> T. 06-51952295 > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl > > >
