On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 15:08, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the standard voting system, lazy or not, does that? Requiring > 3 +1s for example means "more than one PMC member has checked".
Yes, it does, but taking 72hrs and a bit more formalised. I was trying to suggest somewhere in between what we had before with no vote on binaries to something a little more structured without going full hog on another vote or changing how we're currently doing release votes. Most organisations / non-profits have this sense of delegated responsibilities that require more than one person to be involved, and I guess I was looking for something similar. Still, from discussions here it looks like we're ending up with voting in some format anyway. And having all binaries somehow linked in to the release vote where possible in future. So, I guess my question is moot. > Formal vetos can be problematic as they allow people to block things. > > But if course if someone casts a -1 on a convenience binary and > provides a good reason for it it shouldn't be ignored. True! I guess my thought is that almost all valid technical reasons to -1 the binaries specifically are things that make them unreleasable. But I guess better to rely on collective judgement there. Thanks and best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
