On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:29 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> This policy as far as I can tell has never been used by any podling.
It has been used once (by ODF Toolkit).
> I believe the problem it was trying to solve was getting binding votes on
> releases which has mostly been fixed (release votes would go on for 20+ days
> back then).
The initiative which culminated in the 2013 Alternate Voting Process had some
secondary effects which turned out to be more important than the primary
effect.
Most crucially, the IPMC achieved a common understanding about when to approve
flawed release candidates that were legally OK yet not in compliance with
Apache policy. ("Does it put the Foundation at risk?" If not, then bias
towards approval.) Between that and the eventual success of a separate
initiative to codify and clarify official release policy, two important ends
were achieved:
* Arguments over release candidates ended sooner and became less embittered.
* Podlings no longer had to cycle through so many release candidates,
reducing burnout for Mentors and allowing us to use the limited IPMC
release reviewing capacity more effectively.
The problem of insufficient Mentor participation in release review has not
gone away, and we remain heavily dependent on Justin (most often) to provide
both review and the additional vote. If Justin's involvement drops, the
Incubator is likely to have problems again.
However, to address the remaining systemic flaws it seems wise to channel
our energies into policy and documentation streamlining, since that has
yielded better results.
> So I was wondering, is this a policy we want to keep around?
+1 to revert.
The language was deliberately crafted as an addendum which would be easy to
back out. Ditching it will have no problematic consequences.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
