> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino <pedro.l...@mailbox.org> wrote: > > > >> Maybe we need to ask for review of >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the same >> time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken literally, a >> PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a +1 vote, because >> their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a build from source. > > Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are > developers (or development inclined)?
It’s not probably. It *IS*! > >> What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC members to >> declare they have done a build from source and tested the result. Other PMC >> members could vote based on binary testing and signature checking without >> building. > > Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be required that > building from source and testing the result was carried out by at least one > voter (PMC member or not) for each of the platforms/bit depths. > If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64 it does > not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by 4.1.4 RC4) We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release is the Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the community releases. AOO is a unique project for Apache because our users count on the community builds and not the source releases. I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years here at Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds of the former Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees. Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community Builds. Regards, Dave > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
