I'm with Benson here. But we do need to acknowledge the problem identified (again) by Branko.
This is a mentoring problem not an IPMC problem. The IPMC needs to solve it for existing podlings, and podlings where mentors have gone quiet but we need to express higher expectations of mentors for new podlings. Branko, talk to your mentors. If that fails talk to the IPMC. Sent from my tablet On Dec 1, 2012 7:36 AM, "Luciano Resende" <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > It's quite frustrating that people find time to write hundreds of mails > > about points of procedure, but can't take time to review a release > > tarball from a podling. > > > > Activity on Bloodhound is picking up, and the project wants to release > > every couple weeks; yet the 0.2 vote thread sat in general@ for longer > > than that. > > > > It's worse for these mails to go unanswered than if the release had been > > vetoed. I hereby propose we extend the silent consensus rule to podling > > release votes. > > > > -- Brane > > > > > -1 for extending the silent consensus rule to podling release votes. BTW, > have you got any IPMC binding votes from your mentors ? > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
