Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bernd.fondermann@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=nnLU0Y/1knnFc4fLBG8WlbtYt0A9KP1Ykg3Ao6GMjcJLR0WW/RPdNmk3RxILAyawxr
         B95dMh8foR3bO3pXVb5n3OXvouSDO4/AZlAGqdNqwsWeJnqHZIz0mWO5Upu2Fn1zDHjq
         IlIs2yHQDCK7MqlwIYGFuzyvpCdfXLzpymBdQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimGyf4_s4F5f-YdXOniZzKewR+fdz3AO17e6=0r@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikT8KfukJ0-LeoWRxqLADx9GRMQdd2XU3P6c8yK@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimGyf4_s4F5f-YdXOniZzKewR+fdz3AO17e6=0r@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:01:53 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EXv3SNgcY7LwNW3pqRNi_bnpEJPf82sbUzqtC@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Releases and IPMC votes
From: Bernd Fondermann <bernd.fondermann@googlemail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org, antelder@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:33, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst
> <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was under the impression that *any* mentor is an IPMC member, has a
>> binding +1 vote for releases and could therefore approve of releases
>> without having to go through general@
>>
>> While I find it very helpful and valuable for first time releases (and
>> first time release managers) to go to general@ the first time,
>> consecutive releases could go a lot smoother if Mentor votes were all
>> that is required.
>>
>> The current policy states:
>>
>>> Therefore, should a Podling decide it wishes to perform a release, the Podling SHALL
>>> hold a vote on the Podling's public -dev list. At least three +1 votes are required (see the
>>> Apache Voting Process page). If the majority of all votes is positive, then the Podling
>>> SHALL send a summary of that vote to the Incubator's general list and formally request
>>> the Incubator PMC approve such a release. Three +1 Incubator PMC votes are required.
>>
>> So there's not much leeway here. Although the three +1 incubator PMC
>> votes are often already satisfied.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>
> There have been numerous releases where we have not followed exactly
> that process, two other common approaches these days seem to be:
>
> - the email to general@ says they already have three IPMC +1 votes on
> the poddling dev list, there may or may not be comments on the
> general@ thread and the release is done anyway after 3 days
>
> - the initial vote email is CC'ed to both the poddling dev list and
> general@ and the vote result is tallied from both lists and there may
> or may not have been votes on general@
>
> Both of those approaches seem ok to me and I'd be fine with a simpler
> and more flexible policy, perhaps saying that the main thing is that
> general@ must be notified.

All PMC members have binding votes - means, they can be -1 on a
particular release.
I'd appreciate if more PMC members would review releases for projects
they don't mentor (however I myself do fail miserably at this).
(Let's remember that before mentors were formally established, all
releases were ratified on general@ only and much Incubation work
happened here.)
So making release votes visible on general@ early can only increase
overall release quality and give the whole PMC an opportunity to
exercise oversight.
One could also argue that binding release votes are required to happen
on general@. However, in the past this led to stale votes, which does
not serve the incubating projects.

  Bernd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org