Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Peter kovacs]

Ahh cool, thx. :)

Am 19. Oktober 2017 13:03:04 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan :
>In general, we are documenting our release process in 
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release.
>
>We have a problem that the ASF itself documents the rules for voting on
>
>releases in two places: 
>http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval and 
>https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
>Those rules do not quite work for us. In practice, we treat a justified
>
>-1 from any community member as a veto. We put much more emphasis on 
>testing binaries than on building from source. I suppose in theory when
>
>we see a justified -1 all PMC members should change their votes to -1, 
>and change them back to +1 if and when the problem is resolved.
>
>On 10/19/2017 12:06 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
>> Have we documented our process somewhere. I am unsure. I think we
>have at least discussed this already.
>> All arguments sound so familiar.
>> 
>> Am 19. Oktober 2017 02:35:29 MESZ schrieb Dave Fisher
>:
>>>
 On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino 
>>> wrote:



> Maybe we need to ask for review of
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at
>the
>>> same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken
>>> literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast
>a
>>> +1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a
>>> build from source.

 Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are
>>> developers (or development inclined)?
>>>
>>> It’s not probably. It *IS*!
>>>

> What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC
>>> members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the
>>> result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and
>>> signature checking without building.

 Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be
>>> required that building from source and testing the result was
>carried
>>> out by at least one voter (PMC member or not) for each of the
>>> platforms/bit depths.
 If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64
>>> it does not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven
>by
>>> 4.1.4 RC4)
>>>
>>> We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release
>is
>>> the Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the
>>> community releases. AOO is a unique project for Apache because our
>>> users count on the community builds and not the source releases.
>>>
>>> I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years
>here
>>> at Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds of
>the
>>> former Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees.
>>>
>>> Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community
>Builds.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>


>-
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Peter kovacs]

I would like to go a step further and go for auto builds with no manual 
involvement.
For this we must be able to produce same binaries independent from the build 
machine so we can verify the build by beeing able to create a reference build. 
In order to ensure that what we build is the result from the source code we use.

And there we will have to look that we get 3 reference builders that verify our 
binary.

Am 19. Oktober 2017 13:32:28 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan :
>On 10/18/2017 5:35 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino 
>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Maybe we need to ask for review of
>http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the
>same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken
>literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a
>+1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a
>build from source.
>>>
>>> Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are
>developers (or development inclined)?
>> 
>> It’s not probably. It *IS*!
>
>If that is the purpose, it is not a very efficient way of achieving it.
>It would take less of my time, for example, to attach an abbreviated CV
>that I could write once and use for each vote, perhaps just a list of
>degrees, patents, and former employers.
>
>> 
>>>
 What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC
>members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the
>result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and
>signature checking without building.
>>>
>>> Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be
>required that building from source and testing the result was carried
>out by at least one voter (PMC member or not) for each of the
>platforms/bit depths.
>>> If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64
>it does not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by
>4.1.4 RC4)
>> 
>> We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release
>is the Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the
>community releases. AOO is a unique project for Apache because our
>users count on the community builds and not the source releases.
>> 
>> I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years
>here at Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds
>of the former Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees.
>> 
>> Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community
>Builds.
>
>I really get convinced that the source code is good for building
>purposes by seeing people I trust upload binaries for each
>combination of language and supported platform. I then download a few
>of
>the binaries and test them.
>
>During the vote period I do a ritual build of one combination on my own
>hardware, and test the resulting binary, just to satisfy the ASF rules.
>I would rather spend more time testing binaries that people are going
>to
>use rather than testing a binary I'm going to throw away.
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 10/18/2017 5:35 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:



On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:




Maybe we need to ask for review of 
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the same 
time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken literally, a PMC 
member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a +1 vote, because their 
vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a build from source.


Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are developers 
(or development inclined)?


It’s not probably. It *IS*!


If that is the purpose, it is not a very efficient way of achieving it.
It would take less of my time, for example, to attach an abbreviated CV
that I could write once and use for each vote, perhaps just a list of
degrees, patents, and former employers.






What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC members to 
declare they have done a build from source and tested the result. Other PMC 
members could vote based on binary testing and signature checking without 
building.


Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be required that 
building from source and testing the result was carried out by at least one 
voter (PMC member or not) for each of the platforms/bit depths.
If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64 it does not 
provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by 4.1.4 RC4)


We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release is the 
Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the community releases. 
AOO is a unique project for Apache because our users count on the community 
builds and not the source releases.

I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years here at 
Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds of the former 
Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees.

Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community Builds.


I really get convinced that the source code is good for building
purposes by seeing people I trust upload binaries for each
combination of language and supported platform. I then download a few of
the binaries and test them.

During the vote period I do a ritual build of one combination on my own
hardware, and test the resulting binary, just to satisfy the ASF rules.
I would rather spend more time testing binaries that people are going to
use rather than testing a binary I'm going to throw away.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Patricia Shanahan]

In general, we are documenting our release process in 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release.


We have a problem that the ASF itself documents the rules for voting on 
releases in two places: 
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval and 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html


Those rules do not quite work for us. In practice, we treat a justified 
-1 from any community member as a veto. We put much more emphasis on 
testing binaries than on building from source. I suppose in theory when 
we see a justified -1 all PMC members should change their votes to -1, 
and change them back to +1 if and when the problem is resolved.


On 10/19/2017 12:06 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:

Have we documented our process somewhere. I am unsure. I think we have at least 
discussed this already.
All arguments sound so familiar.

Am 19. Oktober 2017 02:35:29 MESZ schrieb Dave Fisher :



On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino 

wrote:





Maybe we need to ask for review of

http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the
same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken
literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a
+1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a
build from source.


Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are

developers (or development inclined)?

It’s not probably. It *IS*!




What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC

members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the
result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and
signature checking without building.


Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be

required that building from source and testing the result was carried
out by at least one voter (PMC member or not) for each of the
platforms/bit depths.

If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64

it does not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by
4.1.4 RC4)

We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release is
the Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the
community releases. AOO is a unique project for Apache because our
users count on the community builds and not the source releases.

I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years here
at Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds of the
former Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees.

Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community Builds.

Regards,
Dave



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Peter kovacs]

Have we documented our process somewhere. I am unsure. I think we have at least 
discussed this already.
All arguments sound so familiar.

Am 19. Oktober 2017 02:35:29 MESZ schrieb Dave Fisher :
>
>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino 
>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Maybe we need to ask for review of
>http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the
>same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken
>literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a
>+1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a
>build from source.
>> 
>> Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are
>developers (or development inclined)?
>
>It’s not probably. It *IS*!
>
>> 
>>> What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC
>members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the
>result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and
>signature checking without building.
>> 
>> Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be
>required that building from source and testing the result was carried
>out by at least one voter (PMC member or not) for each of the
>platforms/bit depths.
>> If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64
>it does not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by
>4.1.4 RC4)
>
>We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release is
>the Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the
>community releases. AOO is a unique project for Apache because our
>users count on the community builds and not the source releases.
>
>I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years here
>at Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds of the
>former Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees.
>
>Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community Builds.
>
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Dave Fisher]

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Maybe we need to ask for review of 
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the same 
>> time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken literally, a 
>> PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a +1 vote, because 
>> their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a build from source.
> 
> Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are 
> developers (or development inclined)?

It’s not probably. It *IS*!

> 
>> What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC members to 
>> declare they have done a build from source and tested the result. Other PMC 
>> members could vote based on binary testing and signature checking without 
>> building.
> 
> Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be required that 
> building from source and testing the result was carried out by at least one 
> voter (PMC member or not) for each of the platforms/bit depths.
> If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64 it does 
> not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by 4.1.4 RC4)

We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release is the 
Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the community releases. 
AOO is a unique project for Apache because our users count on the community 
builds and not the source releases.

I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years here at 
Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds of the former 
Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees.

Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community Builds.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Pedro Lino]

Maybe we need to ask for review of 
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at 
the same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken 
literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a 
+1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a 
build from source.


Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are 
developers (or development inclined)?


What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC 
members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the 
result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and 
signature checking without building.


Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be required 
that building from source and testing the result was carried out by at 
least one voter (PMC member or not) for each of the platforms/bit depths.
If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64 it 
does not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by 
4.1.4 RC4)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Carl Marcum]

On 10/18/2017 07:18 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:

On 19 Oct 2017, at 9:39 am, Carl Marcum  wrote:


Question..
If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether 
stated explicitly or not?

Yes,

Gav…




Thanks Gavin !!



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Carl Marcum]

On 10/18/2017 07:21 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Carl Marcum wrote:

If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding
whether stated explicitly or not?


Yes, it should. People add "binding" as a shorthand to mean "I am from 
the PMC" since a release cannot be approved without reaching 3 votes 
from the PMC, and it must be easy to verify this requirement.


But once this requirement is satisfied, and assuming there aren't any 
-1 votes, adding "binding" or not really makes no difference, and I've 
omitted it at times. There is no such thing as "a non-binding vote 
from a PMC member". And even in the tally it is not really important 
to separate the two, provided one names 3 PMC members who voted +1 and 
points out that no -1 votes were cast.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Thanks for the clarification Andrea.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Carl Marcum]

On 10/18/2017 07:16 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:



On 10/18/2017 3:39 PM, Carl Marcum wrote:



Question..
If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding 
whether stated explicitly or not?


The vote counting is really only for ASF rule conformance. The way it 
really works for AOO, even a single properly justified -1, regardless 
of source, stops the release in its tracks. Similarly, any +1 
increases confidence in the release.


Maybe we need to ask for review of 
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at 
the same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken 
literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a 
+1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a 
build from source.


What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC 
members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the 
result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and 
signature checking without building.


If we tried to follow the ASF policies literally only the handful of 
us who are set up to build AOO would have any voice at all in 
releases, which is ridiculous.





That was kind of the way I was looking at it.

It might be good to include the links in any documentation for the 
release vote email.


Thanks,
Carl


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Andrea Pescetti]

Carl Marcum wrote:

If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding
whether stated explicitly or not?


Yes, it should. People add "binding" as a shorthand to mean "I am from 
the PMC" since a release cannot be approved without reaching 3 votes 
from the PMC, and it must be easy to verify this requirement.


But once this requirement is satisfied, and assuming there aren't any -1 
votes, adding "binding" or not really makes no difference, and I've 
omitted it at times. There is no such thing as "a non-binding vote from 
a PMC member". And even in the tally it is not really important to 
separate the two, provided one names 3 PMC members who voted +1 and 
points out that no -1 votes were cast.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Gavin McDonald]

> On 19 Oct 2017, at 9:39 am, Carl Marcum  wrote:
> 
> 

> Question..
> If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether 
> stated explicitly or not?

Yes,

Gav…

> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 10/18/2017 3:39 PM, Carl Marcum wrote:

On 10/18/2017 03:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

We expect PMC members to have a deep sense of responsibility
to their projects. When they cast a binding vote, we trust that
they have satisfied themselves enough to warrant them casting
the vote. That, alone, should be sufficient, imo.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Thanks to Pedro for pointing out that language and to Dave for taking 
action on it.


For the record I only counted binding votes when they were explicitly 
cast as such.

Perhaps this is my error.

I didn't base it on steps taken as listing them is not a requirement 
that I'm aware of.


Question..
If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding 
whether stated explicitly or not?


The vote counting is really only for ASF rule conformance. The way it 
really works for AOO, even a single properly justified -1, regardless of 
source, stops the release in its tracks. Similarly, any +1 increases 
confidence in the release.


Maybe we need to ask for review of 
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the 
same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken 
literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a +1 
vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a build 
from source.


What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC members 
to declare they have done a build from source and tested the result. 
Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and signature 
checking without building.


If we tried to follow the ASF policies literally only the handful of us 
who are set up to build AOO would have any voice at all in releases, 
which is ridiculous.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Carl Marcum]

On 10/18/2017 03:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

We expect PMC members to have a deep sense of responsibility
to their projects. When they cast a binding vote, we trust that
they have satisfied themselves enough to warrant them casting
the vote. That, alone, should be sufficient, imo.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Thanks to Pedro for pointing out that language and to Dave for taking 
action on it.


For the record I only counted binding votes when they were explicitly 
cast as such.

Perhaps this is my error.

I didn't base it on steps taken as listing them is not a requirement 
that I'm aware of.


Question..
If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding 
whether stated explicitly or not?


Thanks,
Carl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Pedro Lino]

So the practice is much saner than the theory and nobody discarded 
Larry's -1 saying it was not coming from a PMC member. Any correctly 
justified -1 will of course be treated in the same way, regardless of 
who casts it.


I'm aware of that. That is exactly why I applauded AOO's PMC members 
attitude





just reading the ASF rules discouraged me to become a committer
(I was invited in the past) and still does


I did a presentation at ApacheCon a few years ago, called "Bending the 
Rules: Community over Code over Policy", explaining that policy should 
never come first and presenting some examples where we had to, say, 
"interpret" a dumb policy to do the right thing that would not hamper 
the community. It's still buried at 
https://community.apache.org/speakers/slides.html and that is still my 
point of view. But also something that concretely happens in OpenOffice.


Actually I had already read your presentation. As I mentioned in a 
previous email I believe the community currently working on AOO is 
healthier and wiser than in the Oracle period. I'm just not sure about 
the "Apache way"... Seems like a very strict organization which is does 
not have the right mindset for a software that should IMO be for the 
benefit of the users (not for developers to have fun ;) )



Agreed. That is why the "*and all others are either discouraged from
voting (to keep the noise down)*" is particularly unnecessary (if not
offensive).


I trust Dave will get that unfortunate wording amended in 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html - but again, that is 
about technical voting (on a code commit) and not release voting. In 
this sense, the sentence is a bit easier to justify (i.e., if you are 
expressing an opinion on a controversial code commit you are supposed 
to have familiarity with the code).


That was just an example... Actually the wording in the Release voting 
is even worse. What is all the SHOUTING for?
I'm glad all these rules are there to protect all PMC members with an 
"insurance and a legal shield"!
And I'm glad you guys volunteered to be a PMC because this is the 
opposite of having fun ;)


Best regards,
Pedro

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Dave Fisher]

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> On 10/18/2017 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>> On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... 
>>> I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to 
>>> justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them.
>> +1 (as a user)
>> ASF does a hell of a job to discourage participation! I particularly like 
>> this gem "the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, *and 
>> all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the noise down)* or 
>> else have their votes considered of an indicative or advisory nature only.
>> I'm glad AOO PMC members take these recommendations with a pinch of salt.
> 
> I particularly dislike the "only" in "advisory nature only". The success
> of AOO depends on the advice of every community member who cares enough
> to download a release candidate and test it.

I proposed the following new logic on the comdev mailing list.

Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific thing. 
However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, and all 
other votes are advisory.

It turns out that this awful language on the voting page goes back to at least 
July 2004. Thanks to Pedro for pointing it out. It should be changed in the 
next few days.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 10/18/2017 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:

On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too 
much... I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what 
they did to justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them.


+1 (as a user)

ASF does a hell of a job to discourage participation! I particularly 
like this gem "the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding 
votes, *and all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the 
noise down)* or else have their votes considered of an indicative or 
advisory nature only.


I'm glad AOO PMC members take these recommendations with a pinch of salt.


I particularly dislike the "only" in "advisory nature only". The success
of AOO depends on the advice of every community member who cares enough
to download a release candidate and test it.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Lino wrote:

I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure
and confirm that it works. ...
In any case I couldn't find that particular requirement for a PMC member
in the voting page (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html).
Maybe that is being too strict?


If you read the page Marcus sent, you will basically discover that 
probably I'm the only one who wrote to the list about all details listed 
there (such as the NOTICE file etc). Does this mean my vote is "better" 
than others? Of course not.


We don't really look at the status of the voter but at the vote itself 
and (in case it is a -1) at the reason behind it.


So the practice is much saner than the theory and nobody discarded 
Larry's -1 saying it was not coming from a PMC member. Any correctly 
justified -1 will of course be treated in the same way, regardless of 
who casts it.



just reading the ASF rules discouraged me to become a committer
(I was invited in the past) and still does


I did a presentation at ApacheCon a few years ago, called "Bending the 
Rules: Community over Code over Policy", explaining that policy should 
never come first and presenting some examples where we had to, say, 
"interpret" a dumb policy to do the right thing that would not hamper 
the community. It's still buried at 
https://community.apache.org/speakers/slides.html and that is still my 
point of view. But also something that concretely happens in OpenOffice.



Agreed. That is why the "*and all others are either discouraged from
voting (to keep the noise down)*" is particularly unnecessary (if not
offensive).


I trust Dave will get that unfortunate wording amended in 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html - but again, that is about 
technical voting (on a code commit) and not release voting. In this 
sense, the sentence is a bit easier to justify (i.e., if you are 
expressing an opinion on a controversial code commit you are supposed to 
have familiarity with the code).


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Pedro,

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave, all
> 
>> (1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at all 
>> because I did not build from source etc.
> 
> I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure and 
> confirm that it works.
> Replicability is a good measure of transparency and quality.
> In any case I couldn't find that particular requirement for a PMC member in 
> the voting page (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). Maybe that 
> is being too strict?
> 
>> (2) Would you name projects where you have felt discouraged? Have you felt 
>> discouraged here in past years?
> 
> This is the only Apache project I collaborate with (I have been collaborating 
> with several other FOSS projects for a long time). Actually just reading the 
> ASF rules discouraged me to become a committer (I was invited in the past) 
> and still does.
> 
>> We know everyone helping is needed. It was great to have a long standing 
>> member of the user community like Larry vote to alert us to a problem with 
>> macOS!
> 
> Agreed. That is why the "*and all others are either discouraged from voting 
> (to keep the noise down)*" is particularly unnecessary (if not offensive).

I just read the page and I agree it is discouraging. I am going to discuss with 
Community Development about changing the wording. (If that is the correct 
place.)

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Regards,
> Pedro
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Marcus]

Am 18.10.2017 um 22:35 schrieb Pedro Lino:

Hi Dave, all

(1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at 
all because I did not build from source etc.


I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure 
and confirm that it works.

Replicability is a good measure of transparency and quality.
In any case I couldn't find that particular requirement for a PMC member 
in the voting page (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). 


this webpage explains just the general process. Voting for a release is 
a bit more special and therefore described here:


https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval

Marcus



(2) Would you name projects where you have felt discouraged? Have you 
felt discouraged here in past years?


This is the only Apache project I collaborate with (I have been 
collaborating with several other FOSS projects for a long time). 
Actually just reading the ASF rules discouraged me to become a committer 
(I was invited in the past) and still does.


We know everyone helping is needed. It was great to have a long 
standing member of the user community like Larry vote to alert us to a 
problem with macOS!


Agreed. That is why the "*and all others are either discouraged from 
voting (to keep the noise down)*" is particularly unnecessary (if not 
offensive).



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Dave, all


(1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at all because 
I did not build from source etc.


I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure 
and confirm that it works.

Replicability is a good measure of transparency and quality.
In any case I couldn't find that particular requirement for a PMC member 
in the voting page (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). 
Maybe that is being too strict?



(2) Would you name projects where you have felt discouraged? Have you felt 
discouraged here in past years?


This is the only Apache project I collaborate with (I have been 
collaborating with several other FOSS projects for a long time). 
Actually just reading the ASF rules discouraged me to become a committer 
(I was invited in the past) and still does.


We know everyone helping is needed. It was great to have a long 
standing member of the user community like Larry vote to alert us to a 
problem with macOS!


Agreed. That is why the "*and all others are either discouraged from 
voting (to keep the noise down)*" is particularly unnecessary (if not 
offensive).


Regards,
Pedro

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Pedro,

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
> 
> On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
>> This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... I 
>> mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to 
>> justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them.
> 
> +1 (as a user)
> 
> ASF does a hell of a job to discourage participation! I particularly like 
> this gem "the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, *and 
> all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the noise down)* or 
> else have their votes considered of an indicative or advisory nature only.

(1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at all because 
I did not build from source etc.

(2) Would you name projects where you have felt discouraged? Have you felt 
discouraged here in past years?

> I'm glad AOO PMC members take these recommendations with a pinch of salt.

We know everyone helping is needed. It was great to have a long standing member 
of the user community like Larry vote to alert us to a problem with macOS!

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Kind regards,
> Pedro



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Pedro Lino]

On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too 
much... I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what 
they did to justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them.


+1 (as a user)

ASF does a hell of a job to discourage participation! I particularly 
like this gem "the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding 
votes, *and all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the 
noise down)* or else have their votes considered of an indicative or 
advisory nature only.


I'm glad AOO PMC members take these recommendations with a pinch of salt.

Kind regards,
Pedro

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Jim Jagielski]

We expect PMC members to have a deep sense of responsibility
to their projects. When they cast a binding vote, we trust that
they have satisfied themselves enough to warrant them casting
the vote. That, alone, should be sufficient, imo.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Roberto Galoppini]

2017-10-18 20:02 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti :

> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>
>> Even though he is a PMC member his vote cannot be counted as binding as
>> he did not build from source as is required by Apache Policy.
>>
>
> This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much...
> I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to
> justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them.
>
> For example, our last blocker was only affecting binary builds for Mac and
> not even all Mac installations; but all of us agreed it was a blocker, even
> though it could have gone unnoticed if everybody just did the testing by
> Apache Policy.
>
> So for sure we can keep the tally as it is, but I would tend to just count
> the +1s and -1s, and trust that a PMC member will cast a +1 only if he
> feels OK with it, rather than basing the tally on the descriptions. In the
> end, we really need +1s even from people who only test the binaries.
>

That's exactly where I stand too.

Roberto



>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Andrea Pescetti]

Keith N. McKenna wrote:

Even though he is a PMC member his vote cannot be counted as binding as
he did not build from source as is required by Apache Policy.


This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too 
much... I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what 
they did to justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them.


For example, our last blocker was only affecting binary builds for Mac 
and not even all Mac installations; but all of us agreed it was a 
blocker, even though it could have gone unnoticed if everybody just did 
the testing by Apache Policy.


So for sure we can keep the tally as it is, but I would tend to just 
count the +1s and -1s, and trust that a PMC member will cast a +1 only 
if he feels OK with it, rather than basing the tally on the 
descriptions. In the end, we really need +1s even from people who only 
test the binaries.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Kay Schenk]

On 10/18/2017 09:29 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

On 10/18/2017 11:49 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:

Kazunari Hirano (khirano) is on the Apache OpenOffice PMC so his vote
should be included in "binding" .


MzK

"Only the truth will save you now."
-- Ensei Tankado,  "Digital Fortress"



On Oct 17, 2017 18:09, "Carl Marcum"  wrote:

Voting Results

+1: 13
  0: 0
-1: 0


+1 (non-binding)
Keith N. McKenna (knmc)
Kay Schenk (kschenk)
Larry I. Gusaas
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Pedro Lino

+1 (binding)
Jim Jagielski (jim)
Patricia Shanahan (pats)
Matthias Seidel (mseidel)
Mechtilde Stehmann (mechtilde)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Carl Marcum (cmarcum)
Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)

Please let me know if you see any errors or omissions.

Thanks to everyone who could participate.

Carl


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


Kay;

Even though he is a PMC member his vote cannot be counted as binding as
he did not build from source as is required by Apache Policy.

Regards
Keith

Ah! OK. Thanks for this notice! Carl's summary is correct.






--
--
MzK

"Only the truth will save you now."
  -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress"




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 10/18/2017 11:49 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Kazunari Hirano (khirano) is on the Apache OpenOffice PMC so his vote
> should be included in "binding" .
> 
> 
> MzK
> 
> "Only the truth will save you now."
> -- Ensei Tankado,  "Digital Fortress"
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 17, 2017 18:09, "Carl Marcum"  wrote:
> 
> Voting Results
> 
> +1: 13
>  0: 0
> -1: 0
> 
> 
> +1 (non-binding)
> Keith N. McKenna (knmc)
> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
> Pedro Lino
> 
> +1 (binding)
> Jim Jagielski (jim)
> Patricia Shanahan (pats)
> Matthias Seidel (mseidel)
> Mechtilde Stehmann (mechtilde)
> Marcus Lange (marcus)
> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
> Carl Marcum (cmarcum)
> Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
> 
> Please let me know if you see any errors or omissions.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who could participate.
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
Kay;

Even though he is a PMC member his vote cannot be counted as binding as
he did not build from source as is required by Apache Policy.

Regards
Keith




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Kay Schenk]

Kazunari Hirano (khirano) is on the Apache OpenOffice PMC so his vote
should be included in "binding" .


MzK

"Only the truth will save you now."
-- Ensei Tankado,  "Digital Fortress"



On Oct 17, 2017 18:09, "Carl Marcum"  wrote:

Voting Results

+1: 13
 0: 0
-1: 0


+1 (non-binding)
Keith N. McKenna (knmc)
Kay Schenk (kschenk)
Larry I. Gusaas
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Pedro Lino

+1 (binding)
Jim Jagielski (jim)
Patricia Shanahan (pats)
Matthias Seidel (mseidel)
Mechtilde Stehmann (mechtilde)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Carl Marcum (cmarcum)
Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)

Please let me know if you see any errors or omissions.

Thanks to everyone who could participate.

Carl


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

[Carl Marcum]

Voting Results

+1: 13
 0: 0
-1: 0


+1 (non-binding)
Keith N. McKenna (knmc)
Kay Schenk (kschenk)
Larry I. Gusaas
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Pedro Lino

+1 (binding)
Jim Jagielski (jim)
Patricia Shanahan (pats)
Matthias Seidel (mseidel)
Mechtilde Stehmann (mechtilde)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Carl Marcum (cmarcum)
Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)

Please let me know if you see any errors or omissions.

Thanks to everyone who could participate.

Carl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org