Historically at least it was always the that case you needed 3 binding +1 votes minimum (and more + than -), which is why PMCs needed to have at least 3 active members or be considered for the attic, as it is the PMC that must agree to the release happening.
I'd agree the page you linked isnt really clear on that though. I'm not sure if thats still meant to be implied since it speaks of the PMC obeying the requirements, and then min 3 positive votes, plus whos votes are binding..or whether there was an actual policy shift. I'd expect its the former though. This page which I've typically seen referred to before, still details the 3 binding +1 votes requirement: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes I see 2 PMC votes cast from Clebert+Martyn and another implied from Michael (apologies anyone else is on the PMC and I didn't realise), which if cast would get the required 3. Robbie On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 16:51, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > My reading of the Apache documentation on release approval [1] indicates > you've already got the required votes for the release to pass. It says: > > For a release vote to pass, a minimum of three positive votes and more > positive than negative votes MUST be cast. Releases may not be vetoed. > Votes cast by PMC members are binding. > > So, you need 3 votes and more positive than negative votes (which you've > received). It doesn't say you need 3 binding votes. It just says PMC votes > are binding (which has other implications). Perhaps I'm interpreting this > incorrectly. I'd welcome any feedback. > > It also says: > > Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all > signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet > all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all > cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their > own platform. > > I'm not set up here to test an NMS release which is why I haven't voted. > > Sorry if I'm derailing this [VOTE] thread. > > > Justin > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:01 AM <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi PMC > > > > > > > > > > Just need one more binding vote. If someone could be so kind? > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:56 PM +0000, "Krzysztof" <h4v...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Apart from what Chris has done, I've tried to unzip package on Linux box > > and remove the test dir content using terminal (successfully). > > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:47 PM Clebert Suconic > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (Binding) > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:18 AM Michael Pearce > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Thanks all how reviewed rc1, hopefully all the points raised are now > > > resolved. > > > > > > > > I have put together a second spin for a Apache NMS AMQP release, please > > > > check it and vote accordingly. > > > > > > > > This release effectively will be the first release of a NMS AMQP > > client.. > > > > > > > > Also includes some modernisation of the project that was needed to > > > > make the release, updating for latest visual studio, and lastly, > > > > creating a nuget package, that once approved, we can publish to nuget. > > > > > > > > The files can be grabbed > > > > from: > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/activemq/activemq-nms-amqp/1.8.0-rc2/ > > > > > > > > The JIRAs assigned for this release can be found: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQNET-618?jql=project%20%3D%20AMQNET%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.8.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20AMQP > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
