On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:48 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 March 2014 15:05, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the
>> incubator pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a
>> binding -1 ?
>
> IPMC votes are the only ones that are b
On 19 March 2014 15:05, Mark Struberg wrote:
> what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the
> incubator pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a binding
> -1 ?
IPMC votes are the only ones that are binding.
However, even a binding -1 vote is not a vet
what has been with the rule that an ipmc must forward the VOTE to the incubator
pmc when it gets started, and those members can also cast a binding -1 ?
LieGrue,
strub
On Tuesday, 18 March 2014, 4:10, David Nalley wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While not specifically incubator related, was wondering if someone at
> the incubator may provide me some insight.
>
> Right now, release votes cannot be veto'd. This seems like an
> oversight IMHO. If a release candidate is vis
I asked this same question not too long ago. The answer I got back was
that the PMC voters would have to vote -1 in order to execute their duties
as stewards of licenses and IP. Thus folks are not concerned that some
core of folks who don't care could somehow get the votes for such a bad
release.
Hi all,
While not specifically incubator related, was wondering if someone at
the incubator may provide me some insight.
Right now, release votes cannot be veto'd. This seems like an
oversight IMHO. If a release candidate is visibly wrong (e.g. bad
licenses, or something else), surely the relea
