The following comments are integrated: 1. (David & Justin; change the order) > The PPMC vote and the Incubator PMC vote MAY be conducted sequentially or, at the Podling's discretion, concurrently.
2. (Dave; individuals in both groups) > The individuals counted toward these two requirements need not be distinct. An individual who is both a PPMC member and an Incubator PMC member, including a Podling mentor, may be counted toward both requirements. > > Only votes from Incubator PMC members are binding for ASF release approval. > With concurrent votes, the IPMC ends up reviewing RCs the PPMC would have rejected anyway, and IPMC time is the one thing we're short of. IPMC members can choose to review only releases that have a PPMC vote result. It's up to certain IPMC members' preferences. >From another viewpoint, Fesod and Seata may identify those issues earlier with the help of an IPMC member, shortening their total release time. Best, tison. Justin Mclean <[email protected]> 于2026年9月4日周五 00:09写道： > Hi, > > I'm not against concurrent votes, but I've one concern and a few wording > changes. > > The concern is that this puts more work on the IPMC. At the moment, the > PPMC vote filters out RCs with issues before they reach general@. With > concurrent votes, the IPMC ends up reviewing RCs the PPMC would have > rejected anyway, and IPMC time is the one thing we're short of. That on its > own may be reason enough not to do this. > > If we do go ahead, both votes will still run for 72 hours, and both will > be closed with a result before anything is published. > > The general@ vote email should still link to the dev@ vote thread so IPMC > members can see it and check the tally. > > I'd put sequential first and say it's the default. Concurrent should be > something a podling chooses, as an exception, not the expectation. > > Note this changes pages/policy/incubation.ad, which is Incubator policy, > so it needs an IPMC vote to adopt once the wording is settled. > > Regarding JB's suggestion of sending one thread to both lists, I'd rather > not. Replies end up on one list or the other, and the tally gets messy. Two > threads running at the same time give the same result without that. > > Thanks, > Justin
