All, I haven't been active on this project but since merit doesn't expire I wanted to make an observation here. While I know technically the vote passed I think that having a -1 from one of the current core contributors should have been given more time to discuss. Plus he did say pending now so it seems that the work had already gotten in.
--Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Ramirez, M.S. Technical Group Supervisor Computer Science for Data Intensive Applications (398M) Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 158-264, Mailstop: 158-242 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Office: 818-354-1015 Cell: 818-395-8194 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Sep 23, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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*
