incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for our first release
Date Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:16:04 GMT
On 25 February 2012 16:56, O.Felka <olaf-openoffice@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 25.02.2012 01:06, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Ross Gardler<rgardler@opendirective.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Without commenting on the dates, schedules and technical issues I
>>> would urge you to make sure you allow significant time for IP review
>>> from mentors and the IPMC. I imagine this release will get a great
>>> deal of attention and, almost without a doubt, someone will come up
>>> with something that needs to be addressed.
>>>
>>
>> Mentors and IPMC members have had 8 months to offer IP related
>> comments. They are welcome at any time. But in my experience declaring
>> a Release Candidate is especially effective at concentrating their
>> attention on that task.
>>
>> We should plan on having multiple RC iterations. There are enough
>> unwritten rules related to release requirements that we'll almost
>> certainly need several iterations.   But the most effective way to
>> uncover these unwritten rules is by proposing a RC for a release vote.
>
>
> A release by votes? Wouldn't it be better to have some
> concrete release criteria?
> Having some quality goals that must be reached?

It is expected that the release vote is only called for after the
release criteria and quality goals have been  agreed upon and
delivered by the (P)PMC.

In the ASF anyone can create and publish a release as long as there
are no legal barriers to that release and the majority of the PPMC
wish to see the release proceed. A release cannot be vetoed unless for
supported legal reasons. Objections based on quality and features only
count towards a majority. Again, my comments above are based on the
assumption that the PPMC (or someone willing to be release manager)
believes there would be a majority in favour of a release and
therefore the vote is simply to indicate, as far as is possible,
sufficient oversight to allow the ASF to protect its committers in the
event of a legal problem.

Don't confuse voting with decision making. We don't make decisions
with votes, we make decisions with actions. If someone wants a
specific feature or quality improvement in a release the only way to
ensure it is there to implement it.

Ross

Mime
View raw message