Thanks for raising this Stamatis, and I agree on both points. I will update the release guide to cover both. It will carry an explicit validation checklist, and the vote template will ask voters to state what they verified. I asked for the same on the 0.4.0 rc1 thread, so writing it down should make it the default.
The guide will also record that the RM is not excluded from the vote. So the RM for 0.5.0 will cast their own vote and list the checks they ran. Thanks, Vinish On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 09:06 AM, Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to this. > > Voting is one of the most important parts of the Apache way of releasing > software. > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 2:21 AM Stamatis Zampetakis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > In the latest release votes for 0.4.0 I noticed that some people casted a > > vote (+1) without outlining the checks performed. Such votes are not > adding > > much value since we don't know what verifications were performed. The ASF > > release policy [1] outlines the minimum criteria for casting a binding > > vote. Contributors casting non-binding votes are also encouraged to > perform > > these minimum checks to demonstrate familiarity with ASF release > procedures > > (which can eventually turn them into committers) and catch potential > issues > > that may slip through the cracks. > > > > When voting for releases [2] the release manager (RM) is not excluded > from > > the vote. On the contrary, RMs are strongly encouraged to vote and their > > vote is binding if they belong to the PMC. > > > > Best, > > Stamatis > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval > > [2] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes > > >
