incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:47:59 GMT
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko ─îibej wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>>
>>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>>> justify this new requirement?
>>>
>>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>>> are now.  Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
>>> organization.  The backs and forths you are seeing here are
>>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
>>> this.  This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
>>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
>>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision.  Try
>>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
>>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project).  Help
>>> improve things where you see they are lacking.  This community
>>> aspect is very important at Apache.
>>>
>>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement.  The
>>> issue just wasn't spotted last time.  Yes, that's annoying, but
>>> it can't be helped.  The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
>>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
>>> every effort to get them right.  Sebb raises valid concerns that
>>> need to be addressed.
>
> this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in
> the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other
> members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken
> the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can
> be noted and repaired for the next release.
>
> The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread
> for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these
> files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However,
> that's just a thought on my part.
>

We're just running the "community readiness" graduation vote on
ooo-dev right now.  We're also discussing the composition of the PMC,
drafting the charter on our wiki, looking toward nominating a Chair,
etc.  But no formal IPMC vote on graduation is underway.  That will
happen in due course.

One option might be to agree that the NOTICE issues are not fatal to
the purpose of a NOTICE file, and approve the release.  But then have
further discussion on it leading to changes in our trunk, and that
could be a condition of graduation.

-Rob

>
>
>
>>>
>>
>> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon.  Get a group of 20 Members, break
>> them into groups of 5.  Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
>> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
>>  Give them 30 minutes.  Compare the results.
>>
>> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
>> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
>> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job.  I was not optimistic
>>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
>>> you are now.  Keep up the good work.
>>>
>>> --Thilo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>>>> artefacts has not.)
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message