From general-return-38771-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Sat Dec 1 08:44:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5728CD616 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 08:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 8907 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2012 08:44:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8740 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2012 08:44:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8730 invoked by uid 99); 1 Dec 2012 08:44:54 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:44:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.47] (HELO mail-la0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:44:46 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id u2so920666lag.6 for ; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 00:44:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendirective.com; s=opendirective; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=QmcaT0STAHhuuCoDuCBnXeRMmXhL8RtqbbZdoGWchcI=; b=Ynl76QtomusFSW6N3XGpUj2bwG0fkcsEjVxcxGdVcphtztQXnl3gjs9fy1+YqjE/uG 2wFWm5Eyw4sXnG+NaHXAHMZaqCvywzWxjCzJ/8bKNOwswuIhJTg/+G4xEaEWvegHCENE DQHdGgh8MIkG9Ng4c/LHiPtDd6ShI4bi63bAw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=QmcaT0STAHhuuCoDuCBnXeRMmXhL8RtqbbZdoGWchcI=; b=UR/98a8akqL2XkxNcXq1QchGuX8cU6y+lhjhN1dlZshiOn6owP4ZQezz4GRka5Efrn tvWfQ2JebjgA1h+oJBaBZtYujDMp0afshuqKbCqrV19jZZd0H8kg5cEJvIRZOp88dF7S JdVUMNMEVc97nANDFpcuUM22hRjn3nTMomilrHer1LQzRO1rJqsemwMPUm2hW1YSot8K 2y7HebKlG46qw4TVfKZHqbrIYoHxX+96IhUVVk/5o81h8bx9PasLAslfKzK20MUdBZ9G E343KHWj0OvnqZJVWXO5Wx36AIrZ6CuysIhc2dbHZmR0cSrq7zuuV4LtrFaKF3alkDbR W08g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.133.140 with SMTP id pc12mr3693122lab.53.1354351466400; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 00:44:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.16.232 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:44:26 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [81.129.248.199] Received: by 10.114.16.232 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:44:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50B990E6.8010801@apache.org> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 08:44:26 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Invoke silent consensus rule for podling releases (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.3 (incubating)) From: Ross Gardler To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042dfe990e4c7304cfc68650 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlsCJlprDvRuuXFPxXBqkI7iGvm0TzgJduqvUlqAlsJOlJMVpebC9IX5EnqKFSphzcnsD0t X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d042dfe990e4c7304cfc68650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, seems it was Luciano I agreed with. Sent from my tablet On Dec 1, 2012 8:43 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote: > I'm with Benson here. But we do need to acknowledge the problem identifie= d > (again) by Branko. > > This is a mentoring problem not an IPMC problem. The IPMC needs to solve > it for existing podlings, and podlings where mentors have gone quiet but = we > need to express higher expectations of mentors for new podlings. > > Branko, talk to your mentors. If that fails talk to the IPMC. > > Sent from my tablet > On Dec 1, 2012 7:36 AM, "Luciano Resende" wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Branko =C4=8Cibej wr= ote: >> >> > It's quite frustrating that people find time to write hundreds of mail= s >> > about points of procedure, but can't take time to review a release >> > tarball from a podling. >> > >> > Activity on Bloodhound is picking up, and the project wants to release >> > every couple weeks; yet the 0.2 vote thread sat in general@ for longer >> > than that. >> > >> > It's worse for these mails to go unanswered than if the release had be= en >> > vetoed. I hereby propose we extend the silent consensus rule to podlin= g >> > release votes. >> > >> > -- Brane >> > >> > >> -1 for extending the silent consensus rule to podling release votes. BT= W, >> have you got any IPMC binding votes from your mentors ? >> >> >> -- >> Luciano Resende >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende >> http://twitter.com/lresende1975 >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >> > --f46d042dfe990e4c7304cfc68650--