On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > On 29 October 2012 14:48, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> > Thanks for following up Chip. Though I do just want to clarify one >> > misconception. >> > >> > On 29 October 2012 13:21, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I actually have more than enough votes right now to close the thread >> >> out on the project's dev list, and open up a vote for the IPMC. >> > >> > >> > No you don't. >> > >> > To me, this sounds like you're saying "to be honest, I could just close >> the >> > vote and ship this right now if I wanted to." I'm not sure if that was >> the >> > intended message. >> >> Nope, that's not what I was saying. That's taking a single comment >> out of the context of the larger email. > > > Well, in fairness, that is how I understood it *within* the context of your > entire email. I hope you don't think I was just looking for something to > take out of context to disagree with you on? I think we know each other > better than that by now! ;) >
I'll try to be more clear next time. I'm holding the vote open specifically because of this outstanding question, *regardless* of the current tally. That's what I was expressing. > >> > But regardless, you couldn't. A single -1 vote would be >> > enough to block the release. Binding or not binding. It doesn't matter. >> If >> > somebody expresses a real, and justified, concern about the artefact, >> then >> > you don't release until you've addressed that concern. >> >> If that's true, then should the release policy [1] be updated? >> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release > > > Perhaps. > > I know I started out RMing with the idea that I just needed to collect more > +1 votes than -1 votes. But I think that's broken in practice. I think if > you have a valid, justified, -1 vote, and you release without addressing > it, then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong. > > -- > NS No disagreement. Again, that's why I'm holding the vote open until we get enough clarity on the topic being discussed here. IMO, fixing this in the policy would include a statement about the RM having the right (but not the obligation) to abort the vote based on any individual issue raised by a voter. But perhaps this is a topic for another list... Using this thread a specific example, I'll abort if the advice here is that waf needs to be removed in it's current form. -chip --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
