Roy said a while ago that for (P)PMC votes, a -1 is a veto. It is basically
saying, "I cannot work with this person". And corollary, "I should not have
to".
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 20:54 Hen wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> Foundation-wise, all our votes are Majority Voting (new member vote,
Interesting.
Foundation-wise, all our votes are Majority Voting (new member vote, board
vote (ish), votes by the board themselves, omnibus voting). There's little
expectation/requirement of consensus.
Jakarta/Commons wise new committer votes felt that way (Majority); however
both of those were la
Hi,
> Agreed. It does not discuss having a [DISCUSS] thread before the [VOTE]. It
> is important to do that because then an objection (-1) can be discussed
> properly. There can be many reasons that a PMC member might object and these
> need to expressed. Not doing so might lose PMC members and
Hi,
Way back when each project having a set of bylaws/guidelines was fashionable I
looked through them and there is some variation but a -1 on a committer or PMC
member is generally treated as a veto. That being said any objections should
really come up in the discussion stage (and hopefully
> On Jun 21, 2018, at 5:20 PM, Hen wrote:
>
> I’m wondering what a -1 means on a committer vote.
>
> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html says “and no vetoes”, while
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not list a new committer
> vote as a “technical” vote.
>
> My ass
I’m wondering what a -1 means on a committer vote.
https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html says “and no vetoes”, while
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not list a new committer
vote as a “technical” vote.
My assumption is that the rules for voting for an Apache member are
Hello All,
We are glad to announce that vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis
(incubating) 1.0.0-m2 has passed with following results:
+1 binding : 3 (Willem Jiang, Jean-Baptiste Onofre, Mick Semb Wever)
Vote Thread :
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c4d7cb5b0f0e7693c
Hello All,
This vote is closed now, we will publish the results shortly.
Thanks All for the participation in this vote.
Regards
Asif
On 2018/06/18 16:10:07, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis
> (In
Looks great!
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:06 AM Li,De(BDG) wrote:
> We have a general Plan or Roadmap:
>
> 1. Find out the code, modules, components which duplicates of Impala;
> 2. Determine the features which could be merged to Impala under Impala
> community support.
> 3, Define clearly the inte
We have a general Plan or Roadmap:
1. Find out the code, modules, components which duplicates of Impala;
2. Determine the features which could be merged to Impala under Impala
community support.
3, Define clearly the interface between the query engine and other
components, such as the storage engi
Hi Dave,
We have a new name Doris, so we will rename Palo to Doris.
I have updated proposal as following:
#Apache Doris
##Abstract
Doris is a MPP-based interactive SQL data warehousing for reporting and
analysis.
##Proposal
We propose to contribute the Doris codebase and associated artifacts
Dear Craig and sebb,
Thank you. The download page is fixed now.
Best regards,
Moaz
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 5:14 PM sebb wrote:
> Also you only need one KEYS link, and there should be a description of
> how to use KEYS + sig or hash to verify the downloads.
>
> On 15 June 2018 at 14:12, Craig R
+1 (binding)
Casting my vote on IPMC.
Regards
JB
On 18/06/2018 18:10, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis
> (Incubating) version 1.0.0-m2
>
> Apache ServiceComb (Incubating) Community has voted and approved the
13 matches
Mail list logo
