On 29 October 2012 14:48, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks for following up Chip. Though I do just want to clarify one > > misconception. > > > > On 29 October 2012 13:21, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> I actually have more than enough votes right now to close the thread > >> out on the project's dev list, and open up a vote for the IPMC. > > > > > > No you don't. > > > > To me, this sounds like you're saying "to be honest, I could just close > the > > vote and ship this right now if I wanted to." I'm not sure if that was > the > > intended message. > > Nope, that's not what I was saying. That's taking a single comment > out of the context of the larger email. Well, in fairness, that is how I understood it *within* the context of your entire email. I hope you don't think I was just looking for something to take out of context to disagree with you on? I think we know each other better than that by now! ;) > > But regardless, you couldn't. A single -1 vote would be > > enough to block the release. Binding or not binding. It doesn't matter. > If > > somebody expresses a real, and justified, concern about the artefact, > then > > you don't release until you've addressed that concern. > > If that's true, then should the release policy [1] be updated? > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release Perhaps. I know I started out RMing with the idea that I just needed to collect more +1 votes than -1 votes. But I think that's broken in practice. I think if you have a valid, justified, -1 vote, and you release without addressing it, then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong. -- NS
