flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Martin <windo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The 'less-RC' process explained
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:20:38 GMT
Hey everyone,

Thanks Bertrand for the info.  At some point I think we should change the
wording to be more of what we intend. Mainly
because Bertrand makes a good point by pointing out a "burden of defining
your own variants" is being made. I actually registered to change agreement
to "majority approval" as that is what we are looking for, but I don't see
an "edit" option after I've created my account. It's probably in a special
state because it was just created.

I like the idea of working out the process definition a little to make it
more official. I feel if we firm up the definition and continue to firm it
up as we go along, this process stands a better chance of being successful.


On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> Justin,
> I couldn't have twisted what I actually wrote any further out of
> context than you did, even if I tried really hard.
> I refuse to be drawn into a 'blow-by-blow' rebuttal of your
> misunderstandings. I urge you to spend the time you intend to spend
> talking yet another well-intentioned effort to death on fixing bugs
> and adding features instead.
> Is the article perfect? No. Does it need to be? Certainly not,
> according to every PMC member and contributor that read it - all but
> you, predictably, unfortunately and sadly :-(
> EdB
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'll look at the changes and make some more edits later today if I some
> time.
> >
> >> I've changed 'consensus' to 'agreement'
> >
> > While consensus has a well defined meaning under Apache (especially in
> voting), basically agreement means the same thing here. There is no
> requirement for agreement for publishing a release. (again all it requires
> is a majority vote of 3 +1 and more +1s than -1s). Perhaps "some agreement"
> or "general agreement" is a better term? You may consider that an
> unnecessary distinction but I really think that the PMC as a whole misses
> this rather important point about releases.
> >
> > I have concerns about a release process that seems on face value to be a
> single vote only after consensus / agreement is reached and that treats any
> "blockers" along the way as vetoes. It comes from good intentions (trying
> to reducing the workload on the PMC) but may not be in alignment with
> Apache release policy.
> >
> > Perhaps Bertrand or Rich would care to comment on this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message