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,
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven voting process (
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
least 30 days, or more".
Reasoning:
According to pape
ok, this was just a provocation: I don't have time to play against provocations
I take too much time reading and answering on Slack to track provocations on ML
But if I need to do something to get back on normal attention on ML, IMHO it's
about stopping taking time on Slack: that'll be my
Not allowed, according to
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
"the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is universal."
On 2023/05/12 10:01:12 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Lazy consensus?
>
> Again, my main goal is to stir voters up.
> And if unclear, of course
I don't expect more votes even if increasing the minimum timeframe.
Also what really matters is binding votes, so only PMC members count (which
brings the number down to < 30).
Konrad
On 2023/05/12 09:31:34 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven
-1 on that proposal.
As said before every release manager can decide to wait longer than 72 hours.
But for some releases (urgent hotfixes) waiting 30 days until pushing it is
just not acceptable (IMHO).
Konrad
On 2023/05/12 09:31:34 Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I'd like to propose a
Honestly 72 hours is a little too little, especially if a weekend is
involved, but 30 days feels way too much, especially if critical bug
fixes or security issues are in play. (Hopefully rare but it does
happen.) Sometimes we have more than one release in 30 days. Maybe 7
days, with some sort of
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
Premature send :()
Basically I don't know how to test shared components, so I dont vote on
those.
What about some way to run maven where it only runs to bootstrap another
version of maven? Wrapper could possibly do this.
Delany
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 12:25, Delany wrote:
> Well what is the
Well what is the reason people don't vote? I just think we need to make it
easier to actually test the releases.
My system is setup to vote on plugins that I use. Obviously I don't vote on
plugins I don't use.
stage
stage
Le ven. 12 mai 2023 à 12:02, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> Howdy,
>
> Lazy consensus?
>
3 days until someone objects ;), should also generally be announced upfront
if done thanks a VOTE thread like this one if it is what you had in mind
otherwise people expect the standard rules to apply and get
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 17:02, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Lazy consensus?
>
> Again, my main goal is to stir voters up.
> And if unclear, of course I expect negative votes, but I DO EXPECT votes :D
Makes sense :)))
-1 (non-binding)
IMO there should be chance to make "fast" release :)
Well then -1 for the reasons explained (but non binding ;)).
Side note: a vote is more to take a decision, a discuss thread to find one
sounds less rude from my window, in particular since there a real work of
analysis sounds needed.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
Howdy,
Lazy consensus?
Again, my main goal is to stir voters up.
And if unclear, of course I 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 Cservenák wrote:
from mobile (sorry for typos ;)
On Fri, May 12, 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.
> Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vote according to
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
Hi Tamas, I don't share the analyzis (and if I would have to vote it would
be rather negative).
Concretely I don't think "This makes it clear that ONLY 72h is totally
anti-community and disrespectful." is accurate, less than an off day
(sunday) can be but 3 days is generally okish.
That said,
On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 16:39, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> Howdy Maxim,
> yes, I am aware of it, the vote is hence "aligned with ASF process".
> I just propose to immediately make it 30 days, that is as you say, in line
> with the ASF process :)
It would be sad if all releases will MUST wait for
Howdy Maxim,
yes, I am aware of it, the vote is hence "aligned with ASF process".
I just propose to immediately make it 30 days, that is as you say, in line
with the ASF process :)
Thanks
T
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:37 AM Maxim Solodovnik
wrote:
> Hello Tamás,
>
> The ASF rule "vote open for
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 to the ASF Maven 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
least 30 days, or more".
Reasoning:
According to paperwork (ASF stats) we have more than 90 voters available
(PMCs +
21 matches
Mail list logo
