On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make > a > > judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why > > we're now being jumped on over this fact. > > John, > > My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the > vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone > than was meant. > > Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release > candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when > approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later > today. > Marvin, Its OK. I myself am frazzled over lots of things going on around me. So I know some of my responses as of late have either been way too short/confrontational and too long/fillibustery. So I know where you're coming from. I look forward to arguing with you over podling releases in a separate thread. Dan, So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think its worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10, and see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better confidence that you can cut an ASF release). I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy. John > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
