Veto or none veto, binding or non-binding, a -1 vote is an indication of a problem. Process for process sake is pointless and unproductive, so I don't care about the technicalities. A good RM should be looking for excuses to halt the release. (Even though he may strongly want the release to be successful.) This sort of approach is the only way we can maintain quality in our releases. And releasing even though one or more people have raised valid objections might be okay according to protocol, but it is indicative of much more serious problems within the project or its community.
On 29 October 2012 15:09, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 10/29/12 3:39 PM, Noah Slater a écrit : > > 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. 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. >> > Technically speaking, for releases, a -1 is not a veto : > > http://www.apache.org/**foundation/voting.html<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> > " Votes on Package Releases > > Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval < > http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#**MajorityApproval<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval>> > -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and > there must be more positive than negative votes. *Releases may not be > vetoed.* Generally the community will cancel the release vote if anyone > identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, lies > with the individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the > process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum quorum of three > +1 votes' rule is universal." > > However, having -1 would be a sign that something goes wrong. Either on > the community side, or on the voter side ;) Better try to see why a -1 (or > many) have been casted before going for the release in such a case. > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org<general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > general-help@incubator.apache.**org<general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > > -- NS
