Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (athena.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 aharui@adobe.com)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Continuous release review
Thread-Topic: Continuous release review
Thread-Index: AQHPeoo201zYX+uQ1Ei/wP6EAkedg5tWJdCAgAAQmgD//5BjgIAAd4eA//+XbIA=
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 18:10:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CFAB713C.22DEF%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNaqACY-JXUesx-V0PnsiCCkfVo_xKdEMO-N5Nt7Y_JTFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6F8EDB3F-12C5-4D0C-A379-E9AB4F99F391@jaguNET.com>
 <B97B3DBD-2937-4BE0-A127-92ED5B27ED84@jaguNET.com>
 <CFAB643C.22DBD%aharui@adobe.com>
 <C174F6FF-BC2C-43F0-8191-CDA3D25D4E61@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <C174F6FF-BC2C-43F0-8191-CDA3D25D4E61@jaguNET.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
received-spf: None (: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7AAEAC8716C90E468026734BA30331F4@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


On 5/28/14 10:24 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>
>On May 28, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> What I think several of us want to explore is whether the current
>>release
>> policy/process can be automated in places and still be serious about it.
>>=20
>
>Sure, and of course I'm sure there are places where
>some stuff can be automated. But it seems to me that
>most people are chaffing against the "3 +1 votes" and
>the "72 hour" rules... We need to recall that creating
>a release !=3D actually releasing the release, as well :)
I'm not sure what you meant by the last statement, but for sure, those
pushing for reduced overhead for releases have questioned every step of
the process, even the 3 +1s.  But the answer that that it is current
policy is not going to satisfy folks.  We need to try to reduce these
requests down to the fundamental elements, for example:

3 +1 votes: It is my understanding that we want humans to review the
license/notice/headers in the artifacts because it is like proof-reading.
A single person can still miss something and thus 3 reviewers is the
current tolerance of human error allowed.  If that is the true rationale
for 3 votes, then the next question will be: could any amount of
automation reduce that need?  For example, it is my understanding that
there are 'plagiarism' servers on the web where students upload papers and
the their work is scored against whether they copied it from somewhere or
actually wrote it themselves.  If Apache were to create a similar service
that scoured the web for each commit and help determine its provenance,
would that reduce the need for 3 human reviewers down to 2 or 1 or 0?

72 hours:  I was pleasantly surprised to see that it is not currently a
requirement.  I posted arguments as to why it is better to have some
flexibility in another post, but it comes down to the fact that folks can
get email more often these days, and that each community has different
patterns of behaviors, even for each RC.  For Flex, later RCs rarely see
-1 votes in the late hours of a vote so I think we'd find and fix issues
sooner if we could shorten the vote waiting period in certain situations.
Unless there is a legal risk to the foundation, I'm not sure 72 hours
should be a requirement.  Trust the PMCs to make sure their quality bar is
otherwise high enough and potential voters do not feel left out.

-Alex

>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org