incubator-cvs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From c...@apache.org
Subject cvs commit: incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts voting.xml
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:32:37 GMT
coar        2002/12/03 10:32:37

  Modified:    src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts voting.xml
  Log:
  add a section about release votes
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.6       +25 -3     incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/voting.xml
  
  Index: voting.xml
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/incubator-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/drafts/voting.xml,v
  retrieving revision 1.5
  retrieving revision 1.6
  diff -u -u -r1.5 -r1.6
  --- voting.xml	8 Nov 2002 20:36:11 -0000	1.5
  +++ voting.xml	3 Dec 2002 18:32:37 -0000	1.6
  @@ -31,10 +31,11 @@
         within the Apache framework is doing so by consensus, there obviously
         needs to be a way to tell whether it has been reached.  This is
         done by voting.</p>
  -      <p>There are essentially two types of voting:</p>
  +      <p>There are essentially three types of vote:</p>
         <p/>
         <ol>
  -        <li>Code modifications, and</li>
  +        <li>Code modifications,</li>
  +        <li>Package releases, and</li>
           <li>Procedural.</li>
         </ol>
         <p/>
  @@ -61,6 +62,11 @@
         support, it doesn't -- and typically is either withdrawn,
         modified, or simply allowed to languish as an open issue
         until someone gets around to removing it.</p>
  +      <p>Votes on whether a package is ready to be released or
  +      not use yet a different mechanism: are there are least
  +      three binding votes in favour of the release?  See more
  +      about this
  +      <link href="#ReleaseVotes">below</link>.</p>
   
         <section>
           <title>Binding Votes</title>
  @@ -131,6 +137,22 @@
             <title>Procedural Votes or Opinion Polls</title>
             <p></p>
           </section>
  +
  +        <section id="ReleaseVotes">
  +          <title>Votes on Package Releases</title>
  +          <p>Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow
  +          a format similar to
  +          <link href="glossary.html#MajorityApproval">majority approval</link>
  +          -- except that the decision is officially determined
  +          solely by whether at least three +1 votes were registered.
  +          <strong>Releases may not be vetoed.</strong>  Generally
  +          the community will table to release if anyone identifies
  +          serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision,
  +          once three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies
  +          with the individual serving as release manager.  The
  +          specifics of the process may vary from project to project, but
  +          the 'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal.</p>
  +        </section>
         </section>
   
         <section id="Veto">
  @@ -152,7 +174,7 @@
         <title>Consensus Gauging through Silence</title>
         <p>An alternative to voting that is sometimes used to measure
         the acceptability of something is the concept of
  -      <em>lazy consensus</em>.</p>
  +      <link href="glossary.html#LazyConsensus"><em>lazy consensus</em></link>.</p>
         <p>Lazy consensus is simply an announcement of 'silence gives
         assent.'  When someone wants to determine the sense of the community
         this way, it might do so with a mail message such as:</p>
  
  
  

Mime
View raw message