FWIW I tried this just recently and was requested to not do it again. Worth knowing https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0571e9dd1b7711c588a38d8a664378ce7df31c72592edcbe8ab8a72b@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
On 2019/04/02 09:30:10, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com.INVALID> wrote: > Maybe the PPMC and IPMC vote could run in parallel -- a key reason why we > in Apache NetBeans are looking forward to graduation is that we'll not need > to go through the loop of (1) PPMC approves, (2) IPMC rejects, (3) PPMC > needs to put together a new release and vote on it again, (4) IPMC rejects > again (finding something else they hadn't found before), etc. That's slowed > the releases we have done in the incubator down significantly, typically by > at least 2 weeks -- of course, as will be pointed out, Apache NetBeans is > very large -- but, assuming Apache wants to be a welcome place for large > projects too, something needs to be done here (though it won't be a problem > for Apache NetBeans anymore since we plan to graduate before our next > release). So, if the votes were to at least run in parallel, that would > save time, and maybe as soon as there are 3 +1s from PPMC/IPMC members, > that should be good to go, rather than waiting another 72 hours after that, > in situations where those votes come in quickly. > > Gj > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:09 AM Julian Feinauer < > j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I like Craigs suggestion and I'm aware of the problem with the ASF Policy > > if we would skip the formal IPMC Vote. > > On the other hand in PLC4X we had a discussion about a regular release > > cycle to bring new features to the users as fast as possible and decided to > > skip that for now, to keep the burden on the IPMC low (and we usually have > > 3 IPMC / Mentor Votes as we have very active Mentors). > > I agree with this decision of the PPMC but I see a problem with that, as > > the IPMC Vote should be something to help podlings (aside from the > > necessity by Policy) but not "negatively" impact them. > > > > Perhaps it helps to see the IPMC Votes more as a "take notice" in case > > that there are already 3 +1 Votes. This means that the vote is open for > > 72hrs formally, but IPMC members do not feel to have to go to action > > (usually as PMC member one "should" participate in votes... although this > > is practiced differently in the IPMC for good reasons) but CAN if they feel > > like. > > This would especially mean that podlings should be encouraged to formulate > > their votes more explicit about whether there are already enough IPMC Votes > > or not. > > > > Julian > > > > > > Am 01.04.19, 23:51 schrieb "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com>: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'd also like to see those mentors / IPMC members vote with more than > > just a +1 and provide a list of what they checked. If they could use > > something like this all the better [1]. > > > > I wouldn’t be for removing the second step of letting the IPMC look at > > it, reasonably often serious issues are found in that step. By skilling > > that we risk some podlings going all the way to propose graduation while > > having releases that don’t follow ASF policy. This is a situation I’d like > > to avoid. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > 1. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
