Ahh, got it. What you meant was:
  6 committer votes
  1 mentor vote
  4 non-binding

I took it to mean 6 votes total, of which 1 mentor and 4 non-bonding.

Clarity shines forth, thank you.

Are you now in a position to forward this to general@incubator?

Thx

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 05:10 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> Upayavira,
> 
> Am I overlooking something?
> 
> I definitely wrote 6 committer votes (+1 mentor vote) in the email
> dated 3rd November.
> 
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-wave-dev/201511.mbox/%3CCABRGrVenajwQPBw98Zy99UqrMNNQMJ-X5tGcWWAMR3xNX%2Bnu7w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> 
> Ali
> 
> On 3 November 2015 at 19:46, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> > Congrats Ali, and good luck with your future plans!
> >
> > Can I ask you to check those tallies? I'm sure there are more
> > committer/PPMC member votes than two.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 03:22 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Thanks for taking part in verifying this release candidate, it is
> >> great to finally be able to take a potential release to the others in
> >> the incubator!
> >> (I apologize for not following up sooner, I have finally graduated
> >> from Uni, so am now sorting out what comes next...)
> >>
> >> These results supersede the email I sent dated 18th October, with the
> >> results now looking like:
> >>
> >> +1: 6 (+1 mentor, +4 non-binding)
> >> +0: 0
> >> -0:  0
> >> -1:  0
> >>
> >> Ali
> >>
> >> On 18 October 2015 at 02:48, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to Yuri and Jeremy for downloading and trying out this RC.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I set a "deadline" around the 17th October which has now well
> >> > and truly passed.
> >> >
> >> > My vote on the matter was a +1 (though I realize that I failed to put
> >> > this in my original email, so you are allowed to ignore this for
> >> > failing to meet my own deadline).
> >> >
> >> > The result looks something like (including mine):
> >> > +1: 3 (2 binding)
> >> > +0: 0
> >> > -0: 0
> >> > -1: 0
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately we have had insufficient votes to meet the release
> >> > requirement (minimum of 3 +1 binding votes, more + than -) [0].
> >> > Binding votes as decided by people in [1].
> >> >
> >> > @Yuri/Jeremy: How do you feel now about us moving away from Apache, as
> >> > this vote does seem to suggest that there is not enough interest from
> >> > the currently defined committers to maintain this project here.
> >> >
> >> > I am not really sure why none of the other committers responded at all
> >> > to the vote...
> >> >
> >> > Ali
> >> >
> >> > [0]: 
> >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification
> >> > [1]: https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#wave
> >> >
> >> > On 14 October 2015 at 17:27, Jérémy Naegel <jeremy....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> +Jérémy Naegel <http://google.com/+JérémyNaegel>
> >> >> Public Information Officer
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>> I did the following:
> >> >>> - Checked signatures
> >> >>> - Opened the binary and verified it works.
> >> >>> - Opened the source and verified that it can be built and works.
> >> >>> - Reviewed the changes for the rc 10.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ali - Thanks for making this RC!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > Hi all,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > RC10 is now available for review.
> >> >>> > Artefacts can be found here:
> >> >>> > https://people.apache.org/~al/wave_rc/0.4-rc10/
> >> >>> > (Remember checksums are from 'gpg --print-md SHA512 $f > $f.sha')
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I have included both source and binary artefacts for convenience.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The release version (if successful) will be 0.4.0-incubating
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > This is taken from the branch 0.4.0-rc10 of the incubator-wave
> >> >>> repository.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Notable changes since earlier initial release attempts include:
> >> >>> > - Use of typesafe config
> >> >>> > - Bumped versions of Jetty, GWT, etc.
> >> >>> > - Assorted tweaks to build system
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > A summary of useful information can be found in RELEASE-NOTES, and a
> >> >>> > list of changes in CHANGES in the source artefacts.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Action Required:
> >> >>> > Please go and test these packages (most importantly the source ones)
> >> >>> > for any outstanding legal problems, or any runtime problems in a
> >> >>> > 'standard' configuration.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > We are not looking for a perfect first release, as there is plenty of
> >> >>> > time to fix outstanding bugs in future releases, but we do want to 
> >> >>> > get
> >> >>> > 0.4 out soon (at long last).
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > This vote will close around 0000 GMT 17th October 2015.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > [ ] +1 Release it!
> >> >>> > [ ] +0 Ok, but...
> >> >>> > [ ] -0  Ok, but you really should fix...
> >> >>> > [ ] -1 Definitely do not release this because...
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Thanks,
> >> >>> > Ali
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>

Reply via email to