In general, a release can not be vetoed, but it is a gauge to whether
the RM wants to continue or not.
See:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:36 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
> Folks still have to vote on whether or not it is ready. Typically a vote
> against
> means that there is some critical bug which should be fixed before release.
>
> I'd like to think that we err on the side of conservatism as if you need a
> particular feature you can always resort to svn.
>
> john
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Wyn Williams <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> should not the technical expediency and readiness of a system dictate
>> its release ?
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:27 -0800, John Plevyak wrote:
>>
>>> I have a couple concerns.
>>>
>>> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
>>> don't
>>> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't
>> want
>>> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
>>>
>>> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
>>> Seems
>>> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would
>> be
>>> more
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
>>>> Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
>>>> important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to
>> read
>>>> the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or
>> 0
>>>> within the next 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
>>>> proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's
>> lazy
>>>> majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So
>> vote!
>>>> :).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -- leif
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
>>>>
>>
