Antonio Gallardo schrieb: > Upayavira wrote: > >> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> >> >>> Le 21 mars 06 à 18:42, Jean-Baptiste Quenot a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>>> ...Is there a rule requiring new releases to be first approved by a >>>> vote?... >>>> >>>> >>> Maybe not, but we've been doing it this way for about 25 years and it >>> works ;-) >>> >>> Seriously, making sure we agree on release plans (code freeze dates >>> etc.) is a Good Thing - I've seen several projects arguing or >>> disagreeing on releases, so it's certainly good to be a bit careful and >>> to make sure everyone is on the same page. >>> >>> It doesn't cost much and there are at least "social" benefits. >>> >>> So, +1 for voting on release plans ;-) >>> >>> >> A release is the primary output of a PMC on behalf of the ASF. You could >> say that producing releases is what a project exists for. So releases >> _can not_ be done without a vote, with PMC member's votes being the >> binding ones. And probably new releases, once done, should be noted to >> the board in a quarterly board report. >> >> There you go. That's the Bureaucracy of it. >> >> > Or in another way, requesting for a formal approval pings all > committers. Maybe we oversaw an important issue and the vote will ring > the bell for the person knowing that something is still missing. Also, > doing the whole releasing process just to be stopped be an issue is a > wasted effort after all. For this reason, the release manager (Carsten) > prefers to do a formal vote before before starting the whole releasing > process. I think it is a good practice. :-) > Exactly, these are imho the important points for the "pre release" vote.
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
