Roy T. Fielding wrote:
A release requires 3 +1 and a majority of those voting, wherein the only people allowed to vote are the PMC responsible for that code. In other words, the usual rules apply -- it is simply harder to get the votes.
I am kind of surprised that folks think it would be any different.
:-)
Ok - going with Apache tradition - its not the PMC that makes the decision of a *release*. Its the committers in the incubator (who basically represent a bunch of rather non-incubator interest groups). Now assuming (folling classic Apache tradition), at least 3 +1 votres by incubator committers are pulled together (not hard thing to riog if you have an agenda), then according to Apache tradition the PMC is responsible for endorcing publication. Not the endorcement of publication presumably implices that the Incubator PMC is endorcing the engagement of legal liability for the artifacts that are published, prior to the acceptance of the podling into the Apache communty.
Perhaps you can explain to me how the action of the Incuator PMC with respect to publication of an artifact and its reciprical impications towards the liability of the ASF is something that can be held up with *integrity* while at the same time, the Incubator PMC has not facilitated the exit of said podling. If a podling has not exited - then it clearly has not met Incuabtor exit criteria - then equally clearly, the Board has not established due-diligence, therfore - on what grounds can a release be published?
You cannot have one without the other.
Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
