I'm really not sure yet how to vote here. I was going to vote +1 for what I was told by a number of Yahoo! committers would be a one time release as Yahoo! "comes back to Apache" after a hiatus last fall/winter and ended their own distribution. Clearly this code was not all developed as a community process, but I was going to support a one time release of what they had developed in exclusion.
Then I read Roy's email, which confused me. We would he or I or anyone else support this release setting precedent or policy since it would walk all over our bylaws, community process, and the consensus nature of our foundation? This release vote is a lazy majority of the PMC, but other decisions rolled up in this are supposed to be lazy majority of active committers or, in the case of code changes, a lazy consensus. Setting policy by this release means any sufficiently large group of committers could go off and develop on their own and then commit it to a branch and call a release. Furthermore, it now sounds like this is possibly the first in a line of feature releases off this branch. Bug fixes releases, sure. But feature releases? What's wrong with trunk? Nige On May 4, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On May 4, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > >> The point is that these discussion should be sorted out, ie you don't >> change your development and release model on a release VOTE thread, >> you change it on a DISCUSSION thread. > > That is no different than saying you have a right to veto a > release until the issue is addressed, which you don't have. > > A release vote is a majority decision. If the majority > decides to release, then whatever gets released will define > the new norm by which policies are assumed. If not released, > then I suggest collaborating more on the policies before > trying to vote again. > > Either way, we don't hold up a vote for the sake of a > policy discussion because voting is a more efficient > means of discovering if the policy really matters. > > ....Roy >
