> > yep. even 10 -1 votes. No veto. > > It is up to the release mgr. > > That's quite insane IMO, and I have no idea why it was written that way.
I don't know, I guess you have to discuss that at a "higher" level (meaning board) > > The role of a PMC is to supervise the development and release of source > code by a project. If it (ie a majority of PMC members) cannot block a > release, then it cannot fulfil the purpose for which it was created. a good release manager would see for sure that there are several (major) reason why so many folks voted -1 and just simple skip the release. I think that is a way how a intact community works (or should work). No ego, like "*I* pushed this release!" > > For the sake of project harmony, no decision should be pushed through > even against the wishes of a significant minority of PMC members. Even > the opposition of a significant number of non-pmc members should be of > serious concern; open-source is fuelled mostly by goodwill. yep, see above. I can see some very very minor points, like "the index.html of TLDOC has three typos" :) but inside an intact community that wouldn't be the reason to vote -1... > > Of course all this is well understood already; I'm sure no ASF committer > would even consider pushing through a release against opposition. But it > sure is odd that the referenced page would say it is possible. I wonder > why... we never really had many -1 votes on releases. When ever there were -1 votes, every release mgr was addressing them. IMO this community is pretty healthy (intact). -M > BTW, all this is not relevant in this particular case, as this -1 is > clearly marked as "dislike but not veto". > > Regards, > Simon > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
