Hi dev@, As release manager I am closing off this VOTE thread as 72 has long passed. VOTE's cast were as follows
[4] +1 release OCW 1.0.0 Michael Joyce* Chris A. Mattmann* Lewis McGibbney* Daniel Gruno [1] -1 Kyo Lee* *OCW Project Management Committee binding VOTE I am happy to say that the VOTE passed and I will progress with releasing the Apache OCW 1.0.0 RC#1. I would like to say thank you to everyone who took the time to VOTE. It is an extremely important process and one which I hope we continue to engage in as we work our way through the 1.X journey or Apache OCW. Thanks Lewis On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Folks, > Can everyone please have a look at the authoritative source on how the > VOTE'ing structure works. > http://apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release > This is important for us as the result now stands at > > [5] +1 release OCW 1.0.0 > Michael Joyce* > Chris A. Mattmann* > Lewis McGibbney* > Daniel Gruno > > [1] -1 > Kyo Lee* > > *OCW Project Management Committee binding VOTE > > Lewis > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Kyo, >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:49 AM, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> -1 Do not release the package because there are many important pull >>> requests under pending now. >>> I just wonder if there are any reasons to expedite the release. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kyo >>> >>> >> Thanks for taking the time to VOTE. >> I would urge you to rethink your VOTE based upon the following. This VOTE >> is based upon releasing the OCW 1.0.0 codebase as of September 3rd, 2015. >> The pull requests which you refer to are independent from the 1.0.0 #1 >> release candidate as posted on 3rd September, 2015. Baring in mind that 20 >> days a quite a long time and I am not surprised that new code contributions >> have arrived during that window. >> Unless any of these subsequent issues which are now pending as commits to >> the OCW codebase are "Blocking" or "Critical" in nature e.g. a critical bug >> which has been introduced which renders the codebase unusable, then I am >> very reluctant to see that as valid justification to block the release of a >> functioning codebase packaged into the 1.0.0 release as presented by the >> 1.0.0 RC#1 as posted above. >> Does this make sense? >> Would you consider changing your VOTE based on the above with us >> provisionally agreeing to release OCQ 1.0.1 or 1.1 in a shorter time window? >> Would be really nice to meet some consensus here Kyo. >> Thanks >> Lewis >> > > > > -- > *Lewis* > -- *Lewis*
