Also, everyone should vote, even if you've never spoken on this mailing list before.
Every opinion is valuable, and is listened to. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree with this. > > It would be nice if people voting were able to assist, but the inability > to assist SHOULD NOT prevent you from voting either way. If there are > serious issues with the release, I want to know about them, and I WILL > abort the vote for them. > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 26 March 2012 23:52, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> > As the person who's done the most tallying of votes over the last 4 >> years. >> > I agree with Jan. Please leave your votes until you are reasonably sure >> > they will not change. You CAN change them, but it is a PITA. Thanks! >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Mar 26, 2012, at 19:34 , Sam Bisbee wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Happy voting, >> >> >> >> >> >> N >> >> > >> >> > I'm having issues building the artifact on a brand new, vanilla >> Debian >> >> > 6.0 install (built fine on Ubuntu 11.10). It stops with the "can't >> >> > find jsapi headers" error. Attached is my config.log. >> >> > >> >> > jsapi.h lives at /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.1/include/jsapi.h as >> >> > expected. Configuring without any parameters doesn't work either. >> >> > >> >> > So until I can debug this and update the wiki with any instructions, >> >> > I'm -1 on the release. >> >> >> >> Hey all, >> >> >> >> I'd like to suggest that we might want to not vote -1 on the first >> >> sign of issues. >> >> >> >> Of course we'd like to see any error report, but I feel it'd be nice >> >> to wait for suggestions on how to fix this, rather than voting -1 or >> >> voting -1 with a condition and later having to retract that. >> >> >> >> And if it turns out to be a grave error, a -1 is very much called for. >> >> >> >> Sorry for jumping on Sam here, but this has been done before and I >> >> assume Sam just thinks it is standard procedure :) >> >> >> >> It might be me, but I know that tallying votes is less confusing with >> >> definite votes. >> >> >> >> Please disagree with me, if you think we should continue with the >> >> current practice :) >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Jan >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> It's worth taking a minute to read through the Apache guidelines: >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> >> Specifically, Votes on Package Releases >> =\/= >> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority >> approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively >> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes. >> Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the >> release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases >> the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release >> manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to >> project, but the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is universal. >> =/\= >> >> I think there's an unwritten expectation that if you're prepared to >> vote you're prepared to assist on any issues uncovered. >> >> A+ >> Dave >> > >
