+1 -Mice
-----Original Message----- From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi [mailto:sateesh.chodapune...@citrix.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 12:04 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze +1 [Binding] Regards, Sateesh > -----Original Message----- > From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:cloudst...@aprateek.com] > Sent: 04 June 2013 09:23 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pushback 4.2.0 Feature Freeze > > +1 [binding]. > > -abhi > > On 04/06/13 6:43 AM, "Hiroaki KAWAI" <ka...@stratosphere.co.jp> wrote: > > >+1 because "4.2 will be delayed because 4.1 have been delayed" > >makes sense to me. > > > >Basically, time based release focuses on time only, not quality or > >feature. That's the nature of time based release, IMHO. > >I'm not voting +1 for new feature, and at the same time, I feel > >unfair to vote -1 for blocking new feature. > >I'd like to vote for reasonable time based release. > > > ># I think the version numbering scheme is somewhat problematic. > ># Why not "Cloudstack version 2013Q1" if our release is based on time. > > > >## By the way, I'm -0 about time based release. > > > > > >(2013/06/03 22:46), Chip Childers wrote: > >> Reminder to please VOTE here. This vote will close tomorrow, and > >> your opinion counts. > >> > >> -chip > >> > >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00:21AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote: > >>> Following our discussion on the proposal to push back the feature > >>>freeze date for 4.2.0 [1], we have not yet achieved a clear > >>>consensus. > >>>Well... > >>> we have already defined the "project rules" for figuring out what > >>>to do. > >>> In out project by-laws [2], we have defined a "release plan" > >>>decision as > >>> follows: > >>> > >>>> 3.4.2. Release Plan > >>>> > >>>> Defines the timetable and work items for a release. The plan also > >>>> nominates a Release Manager. > >>>> > >>>> A lazy majority of active committers is required for approval. > >>>> > >>>> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must > >>>>occur on a project development mailing list. > >>> > >>> And our lazy majority is defined as: > >>> > >>>> 3.2.2. Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 > >>>> votes and more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes. > >>> > >>> Our current plan is the starting point, so this VOTE is a vote to > >>>change the current plan. We require a 72 hour window for this > >>>vote, so IMO we are in an odd position where the feature freeze > >>>date is at least extended until Tuesday of next week. > >>> > >>> Our current plan of record for 4.2.0 is at [3]. > >>> > >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/vi3nsd2yo763kzua > >>> [2] http://s.apache.org/csbylaws > >>> [3] > >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Cloudstack+4 > >>>.2 > >>>+Re > >>>lease > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> I'd like to call a VOTE on the following: > >>> > >>> Proposal: Extend the feature freeze date for our 4.2.0 feature > >>> release from today (2013-05-31) to 2013-06-28. All other dates > >>> following the feature freeze date in the plan would be pushed out 4 weeks > >>> as well. > >>> > >>> Please respond with one of the following: > >>> > >>> +1 : change the plan as listed above > >>> +/-0 : no strong opinion, but leaning + or - > >>> -1 : do not change the plan > >>> > >>> This vote will remain open until Tuesday morning US eastern time. > >>> > >>> -chip > > >
