Hi Bernd, > 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.)
Actually code modifications are those performed or proposed. At least that's my interpretation, but I'm not an ASF lawyer :) Let's ask the board though -- they can help. Regardless, even if that point is moot, the sheer amount of emails, discussion, amendments, etc., to these 3 sets of proposals and their evolution is enough for me to also believe that this was too nebulous of a vote to even know what you're voting on. So, I'd like to ask the board about that, and plan to. > >> >> 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. Well that's your perspective. I have a different one. Cheers, Chris > > 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_me >>>> rg >>>> 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 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
