Please, please cancel this. We do need to have a serious discussion of River future direction. I expect that discussion to take a lot longer than a week, and hope it will involve as many users and potential users of River as possible. For example, we may need to canvas other project mailing lists to find out whether a River with specific changes would be useful to them.
It will certainly take me more than a week to study the subject, and the various opinions about it, sufficiently to be prepared to vote. I feel, very strongly, that we need to get River 3.0 out the door ASAP. Even with enough time for proper study, holding the River future discussion first will inevitably distract from that objective and delay the release. I thought that was also the PMC consensus. My preferred plan is get existing changes out as River 3.0 first, then discussion and study, then vote on future direction. I am sorely tempted to resign if this premature vote goes ahead, regardless of the outcome, but will not because I don't think such threats are an appropriate way of influencing PMC votes. Patricia On 1/6/2016 4:21 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Option 1. I propose that we take security seriously, no security patches are to be rejected prior to review, that we review and analyse them properly based on merit. That discussions about security issues be taken seriously. Option 2. Alternatively I resign my River committer status Please cast your vote, the vote is open for 7 days. Let the community decide. Regards, Peter Sent from my Samsung device.
