should not the technical expediency and readiness of a system dictate its release ?
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:27 -0800, John Plevyak wrote: > I have a couple concerns. > > Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you > don't > respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want > to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus". > > Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release. > Seems > to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would be > more > appropriate. > > Comments? > > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed > > Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an > > important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to read > > the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or 0 > > within the next 72 hours. > > > > In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this > > proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's lazy > > majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So vote! > > :). > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- leif > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft > >
