Thanks John, Craig and Ted for weighing in on this matter.
I wasn't clear about a few of the rules related to voting including:
1. A tie (and if the voting period will be extended when a tie occurs).2. Less
than the required number of votes (+3 and how this will extend the voting
period)3. Whether a non-incubator PMC member (who is the release manager) has
CANCEL authority at the general@ voting level.4. Veto rule differences (or lack
thereof) within the general@ voting vs dev@<podling> voting
My apologies if I missed this information within the Apache release related
documents.My intent was to convey that I agreed with the -1 votes cast and to
indicate we would resubmit a new release candidate.Note:I did not state that
the vote failed because it was unclear to me it had (due to lack of minimum
votes required at the end of the voting period and a tie).I did not state that
the vote was cancelled since i had interpreted this in a manner similar to Ted
- you cannot cancel a vote if the voting period has ended.
I do believe at this time there is clarification that in this case the vote did
not succeed and we will submit a new release candidate.Should we update the
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes (I can
volunteer), adding the above clarifications would be valuable.
ThanksKam
On Monday, July 18, 2016 8:51 AM, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 8:43 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the
>> major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next
>> vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start immediately
>> without confusion.
>>
>>
> Fair enough. When reading it, my first inclination was that it looked like
> it passed. I still think it would be better if we made there was something
> saying the vote did not pass.
>
I don’t disagree. I think the incubator documentation could be better by
including the CANCEL procedure. It’s not clear that we have consensus on
whether a CANCELed vote has a RESULT. ;-)
I’d propose that any VOTE has a RESULT: passed, failed, or canceled. Let the
arrows fly!
And the comdev pages could also be similarly improved, for anyone who has an
interest.
Craig
> John
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly
>>> fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading
>>>
>>>>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>
>>> Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes
>>>
>>> "It is conventional to end a VOTE thread with a RESULT post tallying the
>>> votes cast. To preserve the thread, this should be done by replying to
>> the
>>> original VOTE post and adding a [RESULT] prefix. The subject may be
>>> retained as is or edited to indicate the result."
>>>
>>> I have seen both positive and negative vote results announced as results.
>>>
>>> If we expect folks to follow the proposed rule “Usually when a vote does
>>> not pass, the person initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather
>> than a
>>> [RESULT] (result inherently is treated as a "it passed" email).” we
>> should
>>> publish this rule somewhere.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:38 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes
>>> are
>>>> placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and
>>> -2,
>>>> which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying
>> the
>>>> vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
>>>> initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
>>>> inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
>>>> that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi
>>> <kamkasr...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John
>>>>> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a
>> new
>>>>> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to
>>> explicitly
>>>>> say 'cancel' the vote?
>>>>> ThanksKam
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <
>>> johndam...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
>>>>> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <kamkasr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The results are in and voting is now closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
>>>>>> Andrew Purtell (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] -1 Do not release this package
>>>>>> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
>>>>>> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Kam
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect
>>> craig.russ...@oracle.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
