Folks still have to vote on whether or not it is ready. Typically a vote against means that there is some critical bug which should be fixed before release.
I'd like to think that we err on the side of conservatism as if you need a particular feature you can always resort to svn. john On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Wyn Williams <hey...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > >
