incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
Date Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:53:28 GMT
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com>
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: kafka-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>>> Subject: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>>>
>>> Dear Apache members,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 2. Different Apache members have different interpretations of the same rule.
>>> It seems that there is no consensus on some of the basic rules even among
>>> Apache members. For example, what constitutes a source distribution and
>>> what should be put in the NOTICE file? Since all it takes is one negative
>>> vote to block a release, this increases the turnover rate of RCs.
>>
>> NO.  The only time someone can claim to hold a veto over a release vote is
>> when they are jibberjabbering about legal issues.  NOTICE errors really
>> don't risk a lawsuit from anyone, so those -1's are NOT vetoes.
>
> If Joe didn't send this reply, I was about to myself. Here's 2 IPMC members that
> *do* agree on this: Joe is right, VETOs do *not* apply to releases of code.

Any legal issue serious enough to VETO a release would require code
access to be blocked and all discussions taken private. Anything short
of this isn't a VETO.

Robert

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


Mime
View raw message