Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of harbs.lists@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [TTH] vetoes get in the way
From: Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D854504-7886-4167-A9F1-13FA019EE593@classsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:31:40 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EAFA4479-B99C-426B-BDCA-570A7BC25EEC@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEWfVJmdg-pA4pUg398TqnT9p5Ly4Zj+H_NYF9UCr4XvSoyR3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <84915823-4796-4706-803F-ED3AD069CB47@gmail.com>
 <CAEWfVJnukwjwEf=d4YyP_-BekVBsNkfS-6ZDnVgTYFHZgGkDHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D0A5D8AF.203AD%aharui@adobe.com>
 <CAEWfVJkSYRti0GZhgq7jmmFZSJo_BCsruZ57s6pUPgZrv6=tVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BF4B53B5-ED63-4B38-BCCA-0233AD5ED782@classsoftware.com>
 <DD7EB4B8-6AE5-4291-A2C5-67293D1065D0@gmail.com>
 <8D854504-7886-4167-A9F1-13FA019EE593@classsoftware.com>
To: dev@flex.apache.org

None of the links you provided describe anything to do with how a =
progression towards a release should work. It only described the release =
process itself. Nor do they describe how discussions should work. (Not =
should they.)

I=92m not sure what these =93several bits=94 that you refer to are. The =
one thing you mention (i.e. trying to have a single thread) is not a =
deviation from anything that I could see being that DISCUSS threads are =
not covered in the links you provided at all.

I=92m willing to accept that you might not understand what others are =
trying to say. It would be most productive if you would ask for =
clarification on things that don=92t make sense to you rather than =
assuming we are somehow deviating from some norm.

Thanks,
Harbs

On Dec 5, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> =
wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
>> Could you please show us where this =93standard release process=94 is =
documented, and explain how we are somehow deferring from this =
=93standard=94?
>=20
> The process is described here [1] which references [2] and best =
practise described here [3] and there is a work in progress with clearer =
MUSTs and SHOULDs in it. (I was unable to find the link)
>=20
> In short the normal process is to have one or more RCs each tagged in =
version control and placed on dist.apache.org along with a VOTE and a =
DISCUSS thread for each RC. The RM keeps making release candidates and =
putting them up for vote and discussion to the PMC until one gets the =
required 3 +1 binding votes (and more +1 than -1 votes). The RC is then =
moved to the release area and the release announced.
>=20
> Several bits of the noRC/lessRC (as described) deviate from this =
standard process, most of the deviations are minor (ie single discuss =
thread for all RCs), testing a nightly rather than the RC itself, but =
others are not ie the apparent need to build consensus before making a =
RC and calling for a vote. The later may be a misunderstanding of the =
then undocumented noRC process on my part, but that's what happened with =
the TourDeFlex release.
>=20
> With few PMC members voting a single -1 or indication that that how =
someone will vote can basically acts as a veto.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Justin
>=20
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html
> 2. http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>=20