Yes, that's what I meant. I don't agree with the need (if 3 IPMC votes are available in the podling), just as the board is not notified of TLP votes. However, I do agree the policy is currently that the IPMC is notified.
I have always notified the IPMC, and will continue to do so while the policy is as currently written. -----Original Message----- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 7:15 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30) On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence > process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general > thread. I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging Ripple into a wider Incubator discussion, but copying only the RESULT email would pose a problem. The full IPMC must be given the opportunity to review any release, because Apache does not allow subsets of a PMC to approve a release. What would work fine is for Ripple to copy the initial VOTE thread to general@incubator. That has been done a number of times in the past. Marvin Humphrey
