Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-ID: <764CA2FF49EC054BA086FC8253A52DD7432C7F@merc09.na.sas.com>
From: Larry Isaacs <Larry.Isaacs@sas.com>
To: "'tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org'" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Voting rules - was RE: [VOTE] Final release of Tomcat 3.3
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:47:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Remy,

It was my understanding that Tomcat 3.3 must not contain any
support for Servlet 2.3 and JSP 1.2 features.  If it did,
a -1 was sufficient to stop its release.

However, reviewing the current Jakarta Guidelines, "Release
Testing" is listed as majority approval.  My recollection
of earlier discussions on the PMC could be out of date.
If I am in error about vetos, someone please let me know.

Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:rmaucher1@home.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 2:27 PM
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Final release of Tomcat 3.3
> 
> 
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Larry Isaacs wrote:
> >
> >
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> > > Vote to release jakarta-tomcat HEAD as Tomcat 3.3
> > >
> > > [X] +1  I am in favor of the release, and will help support it
> > > [ ] +0  I am in favor of the release, but am unable to 
> help support it.
> > > [ ] -0  I not in favor of the release, but won't block it
> > > [ ] -1  I am opposed to the release, and my reason(s) for 
> blocking it
> are:
> > >
> >
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> >
> >
> > > 3) At least three +1 votes from committers are required 
> for a release
> > > 4) There must be a majority of committers +1's and +0's to -0's.
> > > 5) -1 votes by a commiter is considered a veto and must 
> be resolved
> > >    before a release can occur.
> >
> > My understanding was that the rule for a release is 
> majority and at lest 3
> +1s
> > but I'm ok with 'veto' rules ( if a commiter has a 
> technical issue  that
> > would make it veto a release, that should be addressed )
> 
> I thought that there was no veto allowed for a release. Am I wrong ?
> 
> Remy
>