Hello, For everything that has been proposed there has not been a clear security risk or performance issue, so following the original Apache guideline -1 is a vote against it, not a veto. Every +1 has a justification on the same level as the -1 have. Both sides have had pros and cons, but neither solution breaks anything for the project. We might be swapping one problem to another, but that is I guess how the world works.
Toni On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > thank you for the answer. > > this is surprising to me, since these are clearly code modifications and > they should fall under the rules for code modifications. > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > I will speak with the mentors. > > Regards > > P. > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:15 AM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Paolo, > > > > Both proposals passed, as for proposals -1 see not veto. > > > > The first proposal is already under development. > > > > Please reach out to mentors to clarify about Apache policies. > > > > - > > Alex > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 4:33 AM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I am talking about > > > > > > - Including Docs, Examples, and Website(s) in Apache KIE 10.1 and > beyond > > > > > > and > > > > > > - Removing `build-chain`, the custom Jenkins framework, and structuring > > the > > > codebase in a duo-repo setup for 10.2 onwards > > > > > > My understanding is that both these two proposals have been rejected, > > since > > > they had got both binding -1 and these are the Apache rules. > > > > > > But there was no explicit mention that they got rejected and people > got a > > > bit uncertain. > > > > > > Can we confirm? > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > P. > > > > > >
