Thanks for the clarification Roy. On 31 October 2012 05:29, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> [generic incubator comments -- nothing specific to CloudStack] ... > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > > 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: > >>> 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. > > It entirely depends on why the -1 is cast. > > Release votes are lazy majority decisions. They are not at all like > design decisions or adding a new committer. A person could -1 a release > simply because they are working on a new feature and want the group > to wait until it can be included. These are matters of opinion. > > If someone casts a -1 because something is seriously wrong, then > we expect the rest of the PMC to wake up and say -1 as well. > If they don't, then it isn't seriously wrong even if one or a > few people think so. IOW, if it is a serious issue then we can > expect the majority to agree that it is a serious issue. There > is no need to change the rules to accomplish that. > > An RM can choose to stop working on a release at any time. > We are all volunteers. However, the release decision is made > by the PMC; if a vote has completed on an artifact, then > that artifact can be copied to dist by anyone in the PMC. > If something really bad is found in a voted-on-but-not-yet-announced > release, then we expect the PMC to work together to ditch the old > artifacts, fix the problem(s), and start again with a new > version number. If they don't, the project has a much larger > problem than anything we might find in a release. > > Note that there has never been a case where a real problem is > found and the rest of the group hasn't immediately shut down > the release. However, there have been cases where individuals > have poisoned an entire project simply by dragging their feet on > the release process for the sake of their own work or world-view. > > A release vote is required to be a majority decision, rather than > a consensus decision, because Apache understands group dynamics. > That cork is meant to be popped. It is better for the group > that it be popped on a regular basis, where regular is > defined by the majority of the group. The more, the merrier. > Adding glue around the cork to make sure it doesn't pop, unless > we really really mean it, is not a good plan. We are far more > likely to be hurt by a project that can't release than a project > that occasionally releases too soon. Folks often lose sight of > that when focused on fixing a specific issue. > > ....Roy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- NS
