See the section right above - http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes>. Notice the bold sentence that says release votes cannot be vetoed. You can vote -1 on a release, but that is not a veto.
If someone has a concern that is serious enough that they vote -1 on a release candidate it is common for the release manager to cancel the vote and address the issue - but it is up to the release manager to decide how they want to handle it. Ralph > On Apr 28, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > may be i misunderstand the VOTE rules[1]... > > but based on the information of Michael which gives me the impression the > change i have made could be done better which i would like to do...so from my > point of view it makes sense to stop the release vote and respin a new > release with the improved implementation... > > Apart from the above i understand the rules in that way that a "-1" means > VETO ? Am I wrong ? > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > [1]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > On 4/28/15 1:45 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >> Karl, >> >> You are the release manager for this vote so you get to decide what to >> do. My point was that the -1 cannot stop a release, if the release >> manager gets 3x+1(binding) then they can release irrespective of the >> number of -1's... though I suspect that the PMC would frown on a release >> manager who repeatedly cut releases where there was a majority of >> -1's... and if the PMC didn't frown appropriately then the board might >> frown on the PMC ;-) >> >> But none the less, on release votes if you are casting a -1 it is better >> to either cast a -0.999999 or advertise the fact that it is not a veto, >> e.g. -1 (non-veto) so that the rest of the wider community is aware that >> this is not a veto on the release rather a problem with the release that >> the release manager needs to decide the severity of. >> >> On 27 April 2015 at 20:23, Karl Heinz Marbaise <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen, >> >> I'm fully aware that no vetos allowed apart from that the >> suggestions made by Michael are better than my implementation and i >> have decided to drop the release VOTE anyway....cause a much better >> implementation does exists... >> >> Kind regards >> Karl Heinz Marbaise >> On 4/27/15 9:14 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >> >> Remember there are no vetos allowed on release votes >> >> On Monday, 27 April 2015, Michael Osipov <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Am 2015-04-25 um 17:05 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: >> >> Hi, >> >> We solved 9 issues: >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317926&version=12331574 >> >> >> >> Staging repo: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1184 >> >> >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1184/org/apache/maven/skins/maven-fluido-skin/1.4/maven-fluido-skin-1.4-source-release.zip >> >> >> Source release checksum(s): >> maven-fluido-skin-1.4-source-release.zip sha1: >> f4575cc56f2296b35e4404fb6f64e41eccfb1515 >> >> Staging site: >> >> http://maven.apache.org/skins-archives/maven-fluido-skin-LATEST/ >> >> Guide to testing staged releases: >> >> http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html >> >> Vote open for 72 hours. >> >> >> -1 because one cannot follow the fix made in MSKINS-110. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
