On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:29, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yonik, > > IMO, this vote has not passed. A bullet of this proposal proposes code > modifications and this is subject to VETO per Apache guidelines: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
Vetos only relate to some specific svn commit. You cannot veto proposals, releases, strategic decisions and anything else. (This is intended to be a generic comment, I'm not commenting on the vote(s) in this thread itself.) > > Since that point is up for debate, I think we can get clarification on this > from the board at their next meeting, but I dispute calling the VOTE > "passed" until that time. At this point, I don't think the board can really help resolving this issue any better than this community can. Bernd > In the meanwhile there has been much community discussion and points made in > favor of each point of view over the past week. My recommendation is to sit > on this for at least a week, then revisit the issue with clear and concise > goals, and incremental pieces to vote on. > > Cheers, > Chris > > On 3/11/10 6:29 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed. >> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer >> vote was clear. >> >> -Yonik >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted >>> to make sure this was official. >>> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own >>> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous >>> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would >>> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on >>> Mike's thread also. >>> >>> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development. >>> Here's my +1 >>> >>> -Yonik >>> >>> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1): >>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merg >>> e_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0 >>>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2) >>>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only >>>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't): >>>> >>>> * Merging the dev lists into a single list. >>>> >>>> * Merging committers. >>>> >>>> * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or >>>> to Lucene), all tests must pass. >>>> >>>> * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may >>>> release without Solr. >>>> >>>> * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break >>>> out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their >>>> contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers, >>>> queries). >>>> >>>> These things would not change: >>>> >>>> * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored >>>> into separate dirs/modules the way it is now. >>>> >>>> * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX >>>> issues). >>>> >>>> * User's lists remain separate. >>>> >>>> * Web sites remain separate. >>>> >>>> * Release artifacts/jars remain separate. >>> >> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >
