@Ali @Upayavira
Is the release still stuck?
Are there any issues can be addressed to finalize the release?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:01 PM Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok,
>
> I am revising the legal perspective today.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/20/15, 6:40 PM, "Upayavira" <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >As far as I'm concerned, you can still vote on the existing thread.
> >Please vote from a legal perspective rather than a technical one.
> >
> >The timeframe is set to ensure people have the ability to vote - it
> >isn't a requirement that it completes within a specific timeframe.
> >
> >thx.
> >
> >Upayavira
> >
> >On Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 09:39 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I still find the Wave project quite interesting and am more than happy
> to
> >> help.  I just haven’t really felt the pull of the community.  If I
> >> thought there we something specific I could do to help I would be more
> >> than happy.  I would like to see the release finally happen.  Even if we
> >> eventually move away it would be nice to have completed this process
> once
> >> during the life of the project.
> >>
> >> If there is another vote I will participate.  I will review the process
> >> and functional status and provide a vote.
> >>
> >> So you can count me in.
> >>
> >> ~Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/18/15, 4:56 AM, "Upayavira" <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Non-binding votes have a different value. If we had insufficient
> >> >committer/PPMC votes but loads of quality (I.e not drive by)
> non-binding
> >> >votes, it would suggest we have a different problem, and could look how
> >> >to addresss that.
> >> >
> >> >Upayavira
> >> >
> >> >On Sat, Oct 17, 2015, at 09:33 PM, Zachary Yaro wrote:
> >> >> I would have cast a vote, but I read non-binding votes were
> discouraged.
> >> >> To clarify, what are the criteria for being able to cast a binding
> vote
> >> >> for
> >> >> this project?
> >> >>
> >> >> Zachary Yaro
> >> >>
> >> >> On 17 October 2015 at 21:48, 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
> <http://google.com/+J%C3%A9r%C3%A9myNaegel>
> >> >> > <http://google.com/+J%C3%A9r%C3%A9myNaegel>>
> >> >> > > 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