On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please vote on accepting or rejecting this policy change! > > The vote ends with the following 15 +1, 12 -1, and one 0 binding votes. > > +1 Bertrand Delacretaz > +1 Brett Porter > +1 Bruce Snyder > +1 Davanum Srinivas > +1 Doug Cutting > +1 Guillaume Nodet > +1 James Strachan > +1 Jason van Zyl > +1 Jeffrey Genender > +1 Jukka Zitting > +1 Martin Dashorst > +1 Niall Pemberton > +1 Roland Weber > +1 Upayavira > +1 William Rowe > > 0 Thomas Fischer > > -1 Ant Elder > -1 Craig Russell > -1 Emmanuel Lecharny > -1 Henning Schmiedehausen > -1 Jim Jagielski > -1 Justin Erenkrantz > -1 Kevan Miller > -1 Matt Hogstrom > -1 Matthieu Riou > -1 Noel J. Bergman > -1 Paul Querna > -1 Will Glass-Husain > > The following eight +1 and one -1 non-binding votes were also cast: > > +1 Assaf Arkin > +1 Eelco Hillenius > +1 Dan Diephouse > +1 Daniel Kulp > +1 Felix Meschberger > +1 Les Hazlewood > +1 Niklas Gustavsson > +1 Stephen Duncan Jr > > -1 Sebastian Bazley > > This is a slight majority (of binding votes) for accepting the > proposed change, but given the clear lack of consensus and the > concerns voiced about that, I unfortunately need to conclude that this > issue should be tabled until better consensus is reached.
If this was a release vote then I could understand it - since people judge the importance of issues differently - and fixing the issues and moving on to a new release is often easier since it maintains consensus. On this issue though, its been well debated several times - it s clear that there won't be consensus in the near future - so why should the minority get their way when they lost the vote? If this vote doesn't pass then we need to re-write the rules to define how much of a majority overturns the status quo. Perhaps two thrids, perhaps no negative votes. If this policy isn't implemented, then I think all the people who voted +1 at least deserve a definition of how short we fell of passing this vote and what the bar is. Niall > The main impression I got from the related discussion is that the main > concern is not that much the security or transparency of the Maven > repository but rather the status of incubating releases in general. > > Are incubating releases official releases of the ASF? Does the ASF > "endorse" these releases, and what does that endorsement mean? How > strong disclaimers are needed and what level of explicit > acknowledgement from users is required? Until we have a clearer policy > on what we actually require of incubating releases and their > distribution, it seems premature to debate whether the Maven > repository meets those requirements. > > So, before reopening this release distribution issue, I would expect > us to clarify the policy on incubating releases. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
