Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1402598717.30018.YahooMailNeo@web121805.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CAAS6=7i+cCq943vkj_uLLdCfB-n64bZ5nuzDonrsn9V2YTznkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1402598717.30018.YahooMailNeo@web121805.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:04:07 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAAS6=7hECM4wF7yRGAyvpnwBD-agsvfXHKrFjiF4mr6P36pr+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release Policy clarification inititiative
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer
<joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> What is all this stuff about REQUIRED individual testing as a prerequisite
> to a vote?  Most IPMC votes would be invalidated by this, are you sure this
> is what you want versus RECOMMENDED?

It's not a question of what I want, but what's in the current policy.

    http://www.apache.org/dev/release#approving-a-release

    What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?

    [...] Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
    source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
    executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the
    package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases.

A lot of people, including me, think that policy ought to change.  But the
goal of this initiative is only to clarify policy, not to change it.  If we
widen the scope to include policy improvements we will never finish.

In the draft text, we made some tweaks to emphasize policy conformance, but
the requirements remain the same.  Discussion thread:

    http://s.apache.org/PnR

Marvin Humphrey