Re: Binding votes for a release (was Re: 10.2 release in August?)

[Michelle Caisse]

I want to clarify that the current discussion is about a release plan, not a release, so the issue of PMC binding votes is moot for now.  It's my understanding that a release vote is a vote "on whether a package is ready to be released".  The Apache guidelines do not cover a vote on a release plan, but the Apache DB site does: "Lazy majority decides each issue in a release plan."  Again, according to http://db.apache.org/decisions.html, the binding votes are cast by committers.  Am I missing anything? -- Michelle Jean T. Anderson wrote: actually, there's a good thread on legal-discuss regarding this topic starting at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200511.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] and for anyone's email client that wraps the previous line: http://tinyurl.com/nunu8 -jean Jean T. Anderson wrote: Michelle Caisse wrote: Jean T. Anderson wrote: One clarifying procedural note ... voting guidelines for releases are here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes A release requires three binding +1 votes -- db pmc votes are binding for derby. A -1 expresses an opinion, but can't actually veto a release. That much said, the community should consider any -1 votes. Can you point me to where it says that pmc votes are binding for Derby? I see that http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html says "the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes", but according to http://db.apache.org/decisions.html, only committers have binding votes. By my reading, Apache gives precedence to the community rules. PMCs fall under ASF guidelines. If you've noticed recent derby vote threads, committers and db pmc members are always identified in the final result post. We haven't have a situation yet where a derby vote had fewer than 3 db pmc votes, so it hasn't been an issue. -jean