Lazy consensus with a day notice before release is reasonable and seems workable to me.
-James Jong On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: > To be clear - I didn't actually have anything outstanding for 2.7. But, if > I had - I wouldn't have been a bit thrown off by not knowing the release > going out. > > Lazy consensus would have been fine. But we didn't do that. My > understanding of lazy consensus would mean sending an email out saying "I > intend to release 2.7 unless anyone has objections. Will wait 24 hours > before doing so.". > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus > > Upwards and onwards! But let's stick to the documented release practices > next time, or change them to match what we do. > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Simon MacDonald > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was too >> late. >> >> Simon Mac Donald >> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald >> >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the release, >>> and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as >>> solid as possible for the month of conferences. >>> These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy release' >>> process. >>> >>> That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right >>> direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening >>> around the release. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting >>>> blocks. lets not. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so >> voting on >>>>> something that is predictable seems overkill. >>>>> >>>>> If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an >>>>> official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private >> list, >>>>> I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote. >>>>> >>>>> On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy >>>>>> consensus to voting. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a >>>> vote >>>>>>> and refers to this "apache way" doc: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy >> consensus >>>>>>>> (as >>>>>>>> with all decisions we make)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, >> but >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> are being closed that indicate that it has happened. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is >> a >>>>>>>> super >>>>>>>>> important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone >>>>>>>>> comfortable >>>>>>>>> with this release". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki >>>>>>>> page >>>>>>>>> (which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
