Hi Leo, Please take my comments as trying to really understand your concerns.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to *release* something, that something should then actually be released. "Release" has a specific meaning and we (have to) do "distribution at no charge to the general public" of them. I guess it's all in a name.
I guess I don't quite understand the issue you are raising. If the IPMC votes to release something, then it goes back to the podling PPMC to make it happen. I don't see the IPMC as actually "releasing" anything. All it does is to approve a podling release, and then it's up to the podling to take the next step.
If the podling discovers something else that's wrong, or for some other reason decides not to release, are you suggesting that somehow the IPMC is going to go and release it anyway?
The alternative is to *not* release something, and then there should not be a release vote, but a different kind of vote, or no vote at all.
Well, I guess I don't see this the same way. I understand that the IPMC doesn't want to waste its valuable (!) time reviewing stuff that has no intrinsic value, but if a podling is at the point of wanting to make sure it knows how to release, and has all the necessary IP clearance, copyright notices, readme, and disclaimers, why not have a release vote?
Granted, if a podling has three successful release votes without actually releasing anything, it's a fair question to ask what they are doing.
Craig Craig Russell DB PMC, OpenJPA PPMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
