groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Support Java-like array
Date Sun, 13 May 2018 08:57:31 GMT
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.


Cheers, Paul.

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <> 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 <> 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:

View raw message