-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Duncan Findlay writes: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:06:39PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote: > > I've just updated http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/VotingProcedure > > to fix a bug -- looks like we were reading the ASF pages wrongly. > > quoting the fixed version: > > > > For code modifications, patches, and R-T-C changes to svn, committers have > > the binding votes. However, for "ready to release" and project-procedural > > ASF votes, votes must come from PMC members to be considered binding. > > > > (Note: previously committers could vote for releases, but this has had to > > be changed, due to ASF regulations. While the Apache Voting page is a > > little unclear on the subject, discussion on the 'legal-discuss' list has > > made it clear that it is part of the ASF's bylaws that PMCs, and only > > PMCs, can direct this action.) > > Hmm... are "pre-releases" and "release candidates" different in this > respect? Personally, I think requiring +3 from PMC for an RC or -pre > is excessive. Good point. Yes, they are different. "Releases" in this case are official Apache products, hosted on the website; as http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html notes, other people are free to make tarballs and call them what they like, but they're not to be considered official Apache releases. Our pre-releases and RCs would fall into that basket; we will have to ensure they're written to http://people.apache.org/~duncf/ or similar, rather than on www.apache.org or SpamAssassin.apache.org. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFDelJDMJF5cimLx9ARAtZxAJ96itn1dUN/x7ufNYIBR6+eyCZfLwCglyKo Ey7WhPh8FkbSmE91PQGPLnU= =qaxD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
