couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bob Dionne <dio...@dionne-associates.com>
Subject Re: Voting -1 on the first sign of issues (was Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.2.0 release, third round)
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:19:43 GMT
Dave,

Actually the rules are quite clear on this issue:

"However, in no case may someone's vote be considered invalid if the implied commitment doesn't
appear to be met; a vote is a formal expression of opinion, not of commitment."

Cheers,

Bob


On Mar 27, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:

> On 26 March 2012 23:52, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>> As the person who's done the most tallying of votes over the last 4 years.
>> I agree with Jan. Please leave your votes until you are reasonably sure
>> they will not change. You CAN change them, but it is a PITA. Thanks!
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 19:34 , Sam Bisbee wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Happy voting,
>>>>> 
>>>>> N
>>>> 
>>>> I'm having issues building the artifact on a brand new, vanilla Debian
>>>> 6.0 install (built fine on Ubuntu 11.10). It stops with the "can't
>>>> find jsapi headers" error. Attached is my config.log.
>>>> 
>>>> jsapi.h lives at /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.1/include/jsapi.h as
>>>> expected. Configuring without any parameters doesn't work either.
>>>> 
>>>> So until I can debug this and update the wiki with any instructions,
>>>> I'm -1 on the release.
>>> 
>>> Hey all,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to suggest that we might want to not vote -1 on the first
>>> sign of issues.
>>> 
>>> Of course we'd like to see any error report, but I feel it'd be nice
>>> to wait for suggestions on how to fix this, rather than voting -1 or
>>> voting -1 with a condition and later having to retract that.
>>> 
>>> And if it turns out to be a grave error, a -1 is very much called for.
>>> 
>>> Sorry for jumping on Sam here, but this has been done before and I
>>> assume Sam just thinks it is standard procedure :)
>>> 
>>> It might be me, but I know that tallying votes is less confusing with
>>> definite votes.
>>> 
>>> Please disagree with me, if you think we should continue with the
>>> current practice :)
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> It's worth taking a minute to read through the Apache guidelines:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 
> Specifically,  Votes on Package Releases
> =\/=
> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases
> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
> manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to
> project, but the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is universal.
> =/\=
> 
> I think there's an unwritten expectation that if you're prepared to
> vote you're prepared to assist on any issues uncovered.
> 
> A+
> Dave


Mime
View raw message