I have a few comments on this release process. 1. If an IPMC member has voted +1 on a release, that vote is valid regardless of which list the vote was held on. It's the bits that are important. [1]
2. For clarity, when a successful vote is held on the podling's dev list, the vote thread on the general@incubator list should summarize the vote: +1 Joe Bloe (IPMC), Sam Snade(IPMC) +1 three others (ok to list the voters or simply summarize them) [3] 3. The vote on general@incubator is not lazy. No release vote is lazy. 4. To publish a release, at least three IPMC members must vote +1 and there must be more +1 than -1 votes. [2] 5. If a vote is withdrawn because of some issue, the name of the artifacts should be changed, e.g. -RC1 should change to -RC2 and so on until a vote is successful. When moving the artifact from the staging area to the release area, the artifact names would drop the -RC terminology. [4] 6. The [VOTE] threads should not use "reply" to create the [VOTE][RESULT] message. There should be a new message with the result. This makes it easier for mail clients to accurately represent the four vote threads: vote on the dev list, vote result on the dev list, vote on the incubator list, vote result on the incubator list. 7, Every effort should be made to get all (at least three) mentors (who are all IPMC members) to vote on the release. In this case, no more votes from the incubator list need to be obtained. After the 72 hour period of review by other IPMC members, the vote can be concluded. Regards, Craig [1] http://incubator.apache.org/cookbook/#podling_releases [2] https://apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes [3] http://incubator.apache.org/cookbook/#two_phase_vote_on_podling_releases [4] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/doris/0.14/ > On May 22, 2021, at 9:53 PM, Daniel Widdis <wid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems to me that knowing who has carryover votes is not important for a > lazy consensus vote. > > The +1 votes are not really required except in the rare case they might be > needed to counter a -1; in which case I'd suggest intentional action > following the -1 would make more sense than saying "oh well, we had 4 > carryover votes so we can ignore the -1". > > On 5/22/21, 8:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> I think that IPMC votes of Mentors must automatically carryover. (Means the >> VOTE thread is clearly linked, not just RESULTS (This one was not.)) > > IMO The IPMC members (if any) who voted on the podlings dev list need to > be clearly stated in the vote email sent to the IPMC general list. The IPMC > composition changes over time and not listing them may make it difficult when > looking at historical votes. > > Thanks, > Justin > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > Craig Russell Member, Apache Incubator PMC apache....@gmail.com
