Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: The 'less-RC' process explained
From: Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJs+wW0Ns+xhRHsYDc-O+gnVai9RUeCXxmwwXOCtgJPhtOjU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:40:38 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8553E20B-E70D-4096-BB96-80C2F405C886@classsoftware.com>
References: 
 <CAJs+wW13+5jDX7pVY5pKF0OxFFP+CD6WmG3bE2XrBaQMLQ04rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9089E000-AFA8-4199-B625-1766FBB586AE@classsoftware.com>
 <CAJs+wW0Ns+xhRHsYDc-O+gnVai9RUeCXxmwwXOCtgJPhtOjU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org

Hi,

I'll look at the changes and make some more edits later today if I some =
time.

> I've changed 'consensus' to 'agreement'=20

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=