Dave, Actually the rules are quite clear on this issue:
"However, in no case may someone's vote be considered invalid if the implied commitment doesn't appear to be met; a vote is a formal expression of opinion, not of commitment." Cheers, Bob On Mar 27, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Dave Cottlehuber 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
