incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] BOM for Bigtop 0.4.0
Date Tue, 22 May 2012 05:15:22 GMT
These are great points, Alan.

It would be also great if you can help us to finally get the answers to the
questions raised in this thread wrt Owen's -1. We have tried to get a better
understanding of Owen's position and have narrowed it down to asking a pretty
binary yes/no kind of questions. The majority of the project contributors (and
the voting count shows it clearly) are in favor of doing this release in the
proposed state of the source code. 

My take is that members of this incubating project tried hard to resolve the
issues instead of simply plowing forward. However, the questions have remained
unanswered for more than 3 days and well after the closing of the official
vote. I don't think the community has to wait indefinitely before publishing
the voting decision.

As it has been pointed out earlier in the separate discussion thread, an ASF
mentor's role is to help a podding project to move forward according to the
accepted Apache Foundation practices. And I am personally highly appreciate
your input to the matter and explanations about possible outcomes down the

How do you suggest we can resolve this situation? What's the ASF way of
dealing with this sort of  predicaments? Shall a person who raises certain
concerns openly defend his or her stance in order to resolve everything in a
timely and community oriented manner and finally answer direct questions?

Please keep the input coming! Thanks

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 09:49PM, Alan Gates wrote:
> I don't know what the rules are for a BOM vote.  It seems close to a release
> vote, which would indicate a -1 is not a veto (ie it's a majority vote).  
> However, continuing down this path we'll end up with a -1 from Owen when it
> comes time to release 0.4.  Releases are majority votes, but the rest of the
> IPMC is going to take a long hard look if you have a -1 from one of your
> mentors.  I think it's in everyone's interest to work this out now rather
> than ignore his -1 only to bump into it again when it's time to release.  I
> realize you feel his -1 is unjustified.  But simply declaring it to be so
> and moving on will not make the issue go away.
> Alan.
> On May 21, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > What's the official vote count? Can we move forward? 
> > 
> > Considering that the only -1 here has never been granted a reasonable factual
> > explanation, it doesn't seem like a valid -1 after all.
> > 
> > Let's move forward
> >  Cos
> > 
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:19PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:
> >>> I would like to put the following BOM and list of supported
> >>> platforms for a vote. The vote will run till noon PST on Fri
> >>> 5/18. Please vote by that time.
> >> 
> >> The vote is now officially closed. Thanks to everybody who voted.
> >> 
> >> Before I publish the final tally, though, I'd like to clarify Owen's vote
> >> by asking the following questions.
> >> 
> >> Owen, could you, please be so kind as to answer just yes or no:
> >> 
> >> 1. Are you voting against Bigtop including source code that will
> >> make it possible to build/deploy/validate Hue?
> >> 
> >> 2. Are you voting against Bigtop publishing convenience artifacts
> >> that will include Hue?
> >> 
> >> 3. Do you realize that #1 and #2 are fundamentally different issues?
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.

View raw message