I went back and looked at our release governance page[1] and it does explicitly state that votes will be 72 hours. So I was out of line when asking you to extend it and I'm not sure that the extension is valid at this point anyway. Lack of bylaws makes this a messy process.
In light of this I am changing my vote from +1 to +0, since I did not vote in the original time frame. [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html#releasing On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Alright, given the snow, holiday, and the lack of bylaws stating that I > cannot do this: > > I'm extending the VOTE on 1.5.1-RC2 until 02/19/2014 1900 EST (this > extends the original duration to a week for those keeping track). This is > expected to provide an additional two full work days for people to inspect > the release. > > Let's get some good feedback before then, folks. > > - Josh > > > On 2/15/14, 6:29 PM, Christopher wrote: > >> Either way works for me. >> >> I was just suggesting a more formal approach in the absence of bylaws >> that explicitly permit extensions. The general concern, I suppose, is >> that vote extensions could be used to manipulate to a desired outcome >> in a majority approval scheme... so having the vote conditions fixed >> at the time it is announced prevents that. I don't think that's a >> serious concern, though... especially since we all have the same goal >> of producing a quality release, and preventing one that falls short of >> that. >> >> With the bylaws in place, things are simpler, because we'd have >> already agreed on those bylaws, and wouldn't need to do anything >> silly, like vote on whether to allow a vote extension in the first >> place (which would get obnoxious). >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Billie Rinaldi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> A somewhat more formal way of "extending" the vote would be to simply >>>> retract/cancel this vote (or let it lapse with no votes), and just >>>> re-issue another vote with identical artifacts at a more opportune >>>> time. I point this out for two reasons: >>>> >>>> 1) I don't want to undermine Josh's work to create this release >>>> candidate. He shouldn't have to do that again if nothing has changed >>>> and we just need more time to review. And, >>>> >>>> 2) The vote was called with a 72hr. notice, and changing that after >>>> the fact is probably a bit questionable. We can achieve the same >>>> effect without modifying the characteristics of the vote, by simply >>>> calling a new vote, identical to this one, later. >>>> >>>> >>> I'm not sure that extending the vote is questionable. I think it would >>> be >>> fine if Josh just said the vote deadline is extended to X (perhaps an >>> additional 72 hours, or maybe event one week from the original post since >>> many people have Monday off). Some Apache projects explicitly mention >>> that >>> votes may be extended in their bylaws [1], so that's something we could >>> consider when we write ours. >>> >>> But if people would feel more comfortable if Josh reposted the vote, I'm >>> sure he could do that. :-) >>> >>> [1]: https://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> More time would be great. I'll still try to finish up some testing by >>>>> tomorrow, but I can't make any guarantees. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If people want some extra time given the impact of snow, please inform. >>>>>> >>>>> I'm >>>> >>>>> ok with extending this a few days if it means people will give it more >>>>>> >>>>> love. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/12/14, 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate as Apache Accumulo 1.5.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Git artifacts: The staging repository was built from the branch >>>>>>> "1.5.1-rc2" (c810f51b). No accompanying git tag was created yet (as >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> would be the same exact thing as providing the above SHA1). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maven Staged Repo: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001 >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Source tarball: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. >>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-src.tar.gz >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Binary tarball: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >>>> orgapacheaccumulo-1001/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5. >>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-bin.tar.gz >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.1-RC1: ACCUMULO-1908, ACCUMULO-1935, ACCUMULO-2299, >>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2329, ACCUMULO-2331, ACCUMULO-2332, ACCUMULO-2334, >>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2337, ACCUMULO-2342, ACCUMULO-2344, ACCUMULO-2356, >>>>>>> >>>>>> ACCUMULO-2360 >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.0: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a= >>>> commitdiff;h=d277321d176b71753d391f896f09dc9785173cb0 >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keys: http://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Testing: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Manual testing and verification of fixes since RC1 and 12hr CI with >>>>>>> verification performed. All previously mentioned testing done for >>>>>>> RC1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This vote will be open for the next 72 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Upon successful completion of this vote, a 1.5.1 gpg-signed Git tag >>>>>>> >>>>>> will >>>> >>>>> be created from c810f51b and the above staging repository will be >>>>>>> promoted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Josh >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>
