from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes were registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will table the vote to release if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal. Since Michael is serving as release manager for 3.0.3. At this point, it's up to him whether or not he wants to (my enumeration of the possibilities here): 1. release 3.0.3 as-is since there are three positive votes and maybe someone will do a 3.0.4 later 2. repackage 3.0.3 with the patch and issue another call for votes 3. scrap 3.0.3 and package a 3.0.4 with the patch and call for votes for 3.0.4 4. release 3.0.3 as-is and also package a 3.0.4 and call for votes for 3.0.4 I personally think that #1 makes the most sense and would be the least confusing. #2 would be confusing to people who jumped the gun. #3 seems silly. #4 is ugly, but would be acceptable. Michael's call. ;-) Remember, we could have very reasonably released 3.0.3 *last week* since the critical AWL memory issue was already fixed. ALL of the subsequent patches were gravy. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
