I'm cool with that too.  Let's just get 1.5.0 and 1.0.2 out for now using our best due diligence for now on the code. 
Then we need to have this conversation about process.  Basically in the past we've reviewed the branch of code in
SVN and then frozen activity on it until the release manager was done.  Also informally some installers are often
offerred for testing.  If there were problems we would fix the problem then retag.
 
Alex

 
On 3/25/07, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've never heard of anyone having 2x72 hour waits, nor do I
understand why we would.  My impression is that votes are changeable
so if a serious problem  shows up in the 72 hours we just fix it,
retag, and try again.

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 24, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ok, the IP issues are gone, we don't any more depend on
> BouncyCastle jars, thanks to Enrique good work, so I guess we are
> ready for a new vote. However, as stated by David Jencks, it may be
> good to slightly change the process :
> 1) we tag this version ( 1.5.0-freeze, for instance)
> 2) we wait for a certain amount of time (let's say 72 hours)
> 3) if nobody as any objection, we launch a vote
> 4) 72 more hours to wait
> 5) no -1 ? we have a new ADS 1.5.0 release !
>
> wdyt ?