Your observations are correct. Though I disagree with the interpretation of policy (this was the topic of a recent thread on the general list).
We have 4 IPMC votes. The summary is on the PPMC list where the project is managed. Feel free to cast a -1 and invoke the IPMC process machine. In the meantime as an active mentor of the podling I intend to continue along my current path. I will, of course, respect the results of the IPMC vote, although it's a little hard to roll back to July 20th when I sent the message below. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: John D. Ament<mailto:johndam...@apache.org> Sent: 8/9/2015 4:37 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org<mailto:d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30) Ross, It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread. 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list. The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over. 2. This vote was never summarized. If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where I can find the email with the relevant information. Thanks, John On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:44 PM Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > The Ripple project has voted on a release but we are short one IPMC vote. > Can someone on the IPMC please review the release package and vote (see > details below). > > Thanks > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Barham [mailto:tim.bar...@microsoft.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 11:53 PM > To: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30 > > Vote results are: > > IPMC votes: 2 > Ross Gardler > Christian Grobmeier > > PPMC votes: 1 > Tim Barham > > Other votes: 1 > Arzhan Kinzhalin > > Thanks! > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobme...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:12 AM > To: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30 > > Sorry for my delayed vote. I haven't seen a result yet, so I just checked > the release. > > It looks find for me: +1 > > I have seen minor things which are not blocking: the NOTICE file contains > 2012 as year. Maybe update to 2012 - 2015 with the next release. > The sha file contains lower case numbers. But: > > gpg --print-md SHA512 > > outputs uppercase letters. Not sure if there is a standard, but maybe we > should include uppercase letters in the next sha file generation. Please > note, I am not really into all that stuff, so this will work, but it saw it. > > Other than that: great job guys. Sorry once again for my delayed response. > Lets hope others are quicker than I am! > > Christian > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 20:41, Tim Barham wrote: > > Sorry for the delay getting this out, everyone. Travel + other > > distractions + my Mac not being hooked up. Thanks to Arzhan for a > > bunch of work figuring out OpenLayers licenses. Anyway... here it is... > > > > > > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.30. > > > > > > > > The package you are voting on is available for review at > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f1drv.ms%2f1H9yF5h.&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7cdc6a7ab89a8548ad86af08d2a1137f6b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=31h50qoJiEfW3KFus9TWDRWnDCCb0iGkmRzdmGmodr0%3d > > It was published from its corresponding git tag: > > > > incubator-ripple: 0.9.30 (7830f1ac70) > > > > > > > > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (another > > attempt at our first official release!), we must be particularly > > careful that it complies with all Apache guidelines for an incubator > > release. As such, before voting +1, please refer to and verify > > compliance with the checklist at > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fincubator.apache.org%2fguides%2freleasemanagement.html%23check-list.&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7cdc6a7ab89a8548ad86af08d2a1137f6b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=hUklLVVtW5r3F77wo%2fL%2b6YEPkE9jWuLVvabDtDBCMgY%3d > > > > > > > > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements, > > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make > > changes if necessary. > > > > > > > > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in order > > to be confident in the release. > > > > > > > > Please also note from Ross's recent email: > > > > > > > > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means > > > three > > > > > IPMC members. Once a project graduates it means three project > > > > > management committee members. However, as a mentor (therefore having > > > a > > > > > binding vote) I look to the project participants to indicate their > > > > > preference and (assuming no blocking issues on an IP check) I'll > > > > > always vote in support of the communities non- binding votes. > > > > > > > > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time to > > review the release and vote! > > > > > > > > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be uploaded > > to dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM. > > > > > > > > I vote +1: > > > > * I verified build works and tests all pass. > > > > * I verified license headers with Apache RAT (via 'jake rat'). > > > > * I manually verified all third party licenses in node_modules. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
