groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Support Java-like array
Date Tue, 15 May 2018 06:40:07 GMT
I think it would be good to extend the vote, yes, or re-vote, it's not a
problem.

2018-05-15 8:34 GMT+02:00 Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>:

> Cédric,
>
> Should the voting period be extended for this vote?
>
> Remko
>
>
>
> On May 15, 2018, at 15:07, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I can say why I didn't vote: I didn't have time to review the proposal and
> its consequences, so I don't want to give a blind +1 or -1.
>
> Le mar. 15 mai 2018 à 08:03, mg <mgbiz@arscreat.com> a écrit :
>
>> What I meant to say yesterday at 1am was: "On the other hand I do not get
>> why only 2 PMC members have been voting +1 on this proposal..."
>>
>> This is not against voting +0, but about why so few PMC members vote at
>> all... (?)
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: MG <mgbiz@arscreat.com>
>> Datum: 15.05.18 00:57 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@groovy.apache.org, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au>
>> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Support Java-like array
>>
>> My 10 cents:
>> [VOTE][LAZY] seems a bit odd - if PMC members are on vacation/ill/afk one
>> person could basically push through sweeping changes, which seems odd.
>> On the other had I do not get why only 2 PMC members have been voting on
>> this proposal - if you do not care either way, and it already has 2 x +1,
>> just push it over the edge, if you are really against it, shoot it down
>> with -1...
>> Cheers,
>> mg
>>
>>
>> On 13.05.2018 10:57, Paul King wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that there is some flexibility when asking for votes
>> so long as it is clear up front what the expectation is, see e.g. [1]. Even
>> though there are numerous generic Apache sites with similar descriptions, I
>> was thinking of adding some more content in some of our pages to summarise
>> the most relevant information for our project. I was thinking of some
>> additional wording to the "Contributing code" section of the website to
>> indicate that typically committers should be following the same guidelines
>> (creating PRs etc.) for any significant code change as for people without
>> committer status. Also, I was going to add some wording somewhere around
>> our typical conventions for voting. Something like:
>>
>> We strongly value keeping consensus within the project. Sometimes
>> consensus is obvious from general discussions or informal +1s in PRs or
>> Jira issues. For significant changes within PRs or Jiras, it is good to
>> send an informational to the dev mailing list in any case. When consensus
>> is not obvious or for potentially contentious changes, emails with a [VOTE]
>> in the subject line are a good way to ascertain consensus. Typical
>> scenarios are:
>> * [VOTE] for a release - requires 3 more binding +1 votes than -1 votes
>> (no veto capability)
>> * [VOTE] for code change - requires 3 binding +1s but can be vetoed with
>> a single -1 binding vote
>> * [VOTE][LAZY] for code change - assumes absence of a vote is a +1 (but
>> you'd normally want at least one binding +1 so best to wait a bit longer if
>> you don't have at least one) but can be vetoed with a single -1 binding vote
>> A committer creating a PR request is similar to [VOTE][LAZY].
>> 72 hours is the minimum for such votes but there is no maximum time delay
>> - though waiting too long isn't a good idea since the circumstances which
>> lead to earlier +1s might have changed.
>>
>> If anyone has improvements for this wording, let me know.
>>
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That’s probably why over at Log4j we use slightly different language for
>>> voting:
>>>
>>> “The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or more if required). At least
>>> 3 +1 votes ...”
>>>
>>> It seems unfair that by not participating, it is possible to essentially
>>> vote -0 or -1 without justification...
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Remko
>>>
>>> > On May 13, 2018, at 11:48, Daniel.Sun <sunlan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Please see my original email:
>>> > "The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
>>> least
>>> > three +1 PMC votes are cast."
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Daniel.Sun
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message