Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
I don't mind changing the process, but as the other Bill noted, what
we've been doing for a while is:
The process never changed: originally, I was releasing builds (= alpha
equivalents) that were then voted as "alpha, beta or stable" in a single
subsequent vote. This AFAIK is compliant with the ASF releases rules.
Yes, as long as it is not announced as the release, but announced as the
candidate, tarball, what have you. I noted specifically that Yoav sent this
to announce@ which is definately verboten, pre vote.
We vote on tarballs, fwiw, we don't vote on tree-stability. I've been slammed
for trying to do just that by the original policy authors :)
Not trying to create waves here, but just make everyone aware (as I did about
a year ago on one of Mladen's candidates) what the policy is, for the protection
of whomever voulenteers to RM a release!
The process of voting is the action the ASF board designated for the project/ASF
to collectively assume responsibility for what goes 'out the door'. Once those
three +1's (more +1 than -1) are collected, the project *assumes* responsibility
for the end result, and it's no longer the RM's result, it's an ASF result.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
