t
> the spring framework where monthly cadence works. Save that for maven
> itself 😉
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Tamás Cservenák
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 5:32 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] Change to the voting process
>
> Howdy,
>
&
Friday, May 12, 2023 5:32 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] Change to the voting process
Howdy,
I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven voting process (in line with ASF
guidelines):
CHANGE the current "vote open for at least 72h" window to "vote open for at
ody votes, this vote according to ASF voting guidelines
> will pass.
>
> Thanks
> T
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tamas, I don't share the analyzis (and if I would have to vote it would
> > be rather negative).
rvenák wrote:
> >
> > > Howdy Romain,
> > >
> > > So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member
> > of
> > > PMC.
> > > The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit.
> > > Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vot
hange to the ASF Maven voting process (in line with
> ASF guidelines):
> CHANGE the current "vote open for at least 72h" window to "vote open for at
> least 30 days, or more".
>
> Reasoning:
> According to paperwork (ASF stats) we have more than 90 voters avai
e to propose a change to the ASF Maven voting process (in line with
> ASF guidelines):
> CHANGE the current "vote open for at least 72h" window to "vote open for at
> least 30 days, or more".
>
> Reasoning:
> According to paperwork (ASF stats) we have more tha
emergency rip cord for critical issues?
-1 on 30 days
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:33 AM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven voting process (in line with
> ASF guidelines):
> CHANGE the current "vote open for at least 72h&
On 12 May 2023, at 22:01, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Again, my main goal is to stir voters up.
> And if unclear, of course I expect negative votes, but I DO EXPECT votes :D
My vague understanding here - if someone thus wanted to CANCEL the vote, the
ruling would then still require it to be open fo
expect negative votes, but I DO EXPECT votes
>> :D
>>
>> T
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:58 AM Maxim Solodovnik
>> wrote:
>>
>> > from mobile (sorry for typos ;)
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 12, 2023, 16:53 Tamás
2023, 16:53 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> >
> > > Howdy Romain,
> > >
> > > So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member
> > of
> > > PMC.
> > > The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit.
> > > Otherwis
pply and get surprised the
vote passed without sufficient bindings.
On a more personal note, I don't think lazy consensus is ok to change the
voting rules (legally it is but community wide I'm on the other camp but
that's a detail).
So to summarize my view: don't try to abuse ou
t;
> > > So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member
> > of
> > > PMC.
> > > The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit.
> > > Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vote according to ASF voting guidelines
> > &g
mance>
Le ven. 12 mai 2023 à 11:53, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> Howdy Romain,
>
> So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member of
> PMC.
> The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit.
> Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vote accordin
venák wrote:
>
> > Howdy Romain,
> >
> > So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member
> of
> > PMC.
> > The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit.
> > Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vote according to ASF voting guide
vote according to ASF voting guidelines
> will pass.
>
To pass the VOTE needs at least 3 +1
And more positive votes than negative
How vote can pass if nobody votes?
> Thanks
> T
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM Romain Manni-Bucau >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tamas,
Howdy Romain,
So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member of
PMC.
The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit.
Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vote according to ASF voting guidelines
will pass.
Thanks
T
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le ven. 12 mai 2023 à 11:32, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven voti
t; > i.e. the VOTE can't be closed earlier than 72 hours are over but can
> > last longer :))
> >
> > On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 16:33, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> > >
> > > Howdy,
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose a change to the AS
rule "vote open for at least 72h" only limits lower bound
> i.e. the VOTE can't be closed earlier than 72 hours are over but can
> last longer :))
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 16:33, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > I'd like
Hello Tamás,
The ASF rule "vote open for at least 72h" only limits lower bound
i.e. the VOTE can't be closed earlier than 72 hours are over but can
last longer :))
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 16:33, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to propose a change
Howdy,
I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven voting process (in line with
ASF guidelines):
CHANGE the current "vote open for at least 72h" window to "vote open for at
least 30 days, or more".
Reasoning:
According to paperwork (ASF stats) we have more than
enting review or pushing releases outside the ASF."
>
> I agree with everything you said below. I was saying we need to keep the 72h
> voting window because there are good reasons for it. It's not that everyone
> has to review - just that everyone has the opportunity to.
id below. I was saying we need to keep the 72h
voting window because there are good reasons for it. It's not that everyone has
to review - just that everyone has the opportunity to.
- Brett
On 28/11/2009, at 1:40 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>> I'm also not pushing for duration
> I'm also not pushing for duration for "testing" purposes. That's part of it,
> but as Jason said
>automation can reduce the need over time (though it's never going to be 100%
>so there's some value
>in testing). However, it is mostly for an opportunity to review changes. If we
>do "8 releases
On 27/11/2009, at 2:27 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
>> The logic here is flawed because it is from a single
>> perspective of an
>> individual who finds it burdensome to validate each and every release.
>
> It isn't just me. Both Paul and Brett expressed similar concerns ;-).
I don't think this
On 2009-11-26, at 11:23 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 2009-11-26, at 8:04 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
I can only speak from experience with what we have done here
internally but I can also attest that releasing too often is a
real pain. You en
On 2009-11-26, at 11:04 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
I can only speak from experience with what we have done here
internally but I can also attest that releasing too often is a real
pain. You end up having a bunch of releases publicized that no
On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 2009-11-26, at 8:04 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
>
>> I can only speak from experience with what we have done here internally but
>> I can also attest that releasing too often is a real pain. You end up having
>> a bunch of releases publici
On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote:
> I can only speak from experience with what we have done here internally but I
> can also attest that releasing too often is a real pain. You end up having a
> bunch of releases publicized that no one cares about. It only serves to
> clutter a
s.benedic...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: voting was: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.0-alpha-5
I would also like to contribute my frustration with the
current build process. It's great the alpha releases
ying to evaluate 3.x.
>
> > ---
> > Todd Thiessen
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com
> >> [mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 20
s.benedic...@gmail.com
[mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: voting was: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.0-alpha-5
I would also like to contribute my frustration with the
current build process.
> -Original Message-
> From: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com
> [mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:21 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: voting was: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.0-alpha-5
>
2009/11/26 Paul Benedict :
> I would also like to contribute my frustration with the current build
> process. It's great the alpha releases are coming out often, but I
> cannot possibly be testing them at the frequency you guys are
> currently tagging and voting. I thought the &q
I would also like to contribute my frustration with the current build
process. It's great the alpha releases are coming out often, but I
cannot possibly be testing them at the frequency you guys are
currently tagging and voting. I thought the "once a week" alpha was a
good idea un
Let's not beat the dead horse. No one cares. There's not good reason
for not releasing something immediately if there are fixes available.
That's just not the way it works here, that's fine and not a big deal.
On 2009-11-25, at 7:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 26/11/2009, at 6:24 AM, Jason
On 26/11/2009, at 6:24 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> If ever we really needed to push out builds more frequently I would just do
> it from Sonatype. I've given up trying to be truly agile at Apache, it's just
> not going to happen.
I don't understand what the issue is with the current process. Be
nly
says "Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any
release" - but I can't find something that specifically says what
the "requirements on approving any release" are.
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
That's written up under http://www.ap
v/release.html
That's written up under http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Adding a link to the voting doc from the release doc would probably be
wise, but it's always a huge mess when somebody tries to modify
release.html :-)
-Dan
---
we already decided to vote on POMs and it is always a good way
Cheers,
Vincent
2006/12/29, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
Some time back, I think we agreed to vote to release parent POMs too.
Am I misremembering, or have we just lost the habit?
I'd like to get back to that, as I've lo
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
Some time back, I think we agreed to vote to release parent POMs too. Am
I misremembering, or have we just lost the habit?
I'd like to get back to that, as I've lost track of the reasons for each
release and don't necessarily agree with one of the last ones (need
fur
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
Some time back, I think we agreed to vote to release parent POMs too. Am
I misremembering, or have we just lost the habit?
I'd like to get back to that, as I've lost track of the reasons for each
release and don't necessarily agree with one of the last ones (need
fur
Hi,
Some time back, I think we agreed to vote to release parent POMs too.
Am I misremembering, or have we just lost the habit?
I'd like to get back to that, as I've lost track of the reasons for
each release and don't necessarily agree with one of the last ones
(need further clarification
Hi,
Voting for PMC members should happen here, and we have often had a
sounding board for new people on projects here but the votes should
be open and on the dev list. The vote going up for commit privs
should be done in the open.
Jason
ed on (effectively a formal RC tag)
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:04 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Voting procedures WAS: [VOTE] Release PMD Plugin
We need to have better voting procedures, because it's h
On 07/11/2006, at 5:59 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
How so?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. But changing the build to
include license files means we need to check that it's all good
before we can vote on it. And tests not passing is likewise a blocker.
- Brett
-
On 6 Nov 06, at 10:33 PM 6 Nov 06, Brett Porter wrote:
We need to have better voting procedures, because it's hard to see
what the official count is amongst the discussion. It seems the
thread where Jason said these were under way was not explicit
enough, so my suggestion is:
1) we
We need to have better voting procedures, because it's hard to see
what the official count is amongst the discussion. It seems the
thread where Jason said these were under way was not explicit enough,
so my suggestion is:
1) we stop the PMD vote thread now. Daniel's two issues
gt;
> - Forwarded by dIon Gillard/Multitask Consulting/AU on 26/03/2003
> 11:09 AM -
>
> "Ted Leung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 26/03/2003 10:51 AM
> Please respond to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> To
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc
>
>
"Ted Leung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26/03/2003 10:51 AM
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
Subject
Re: Committer Voting [Was: Revisions to xml.apache.org charter]
Hi all,
I've committed a new version of the charter with "deactivation wording
50 matches
Mail list logo
