On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:17 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Hoops constructed by the IPMC. Like a secondary release vote on general@ > > This is because of ASF bylaws i.e only PMC votes are binding on releases. That is not in the Bylaws. Stop making stuff up. > So you're saying implementations of ASF bylaws are "arbitrarily defined > hoops”? See above. > There could be other ways of dealing with this bylaw that have been > suggested, What bylaw? Got a reference? > for example treating podling releases not as official Apache releases. That is the origin of this thread, because you only ever pose hypotheticals. You only pose "could" possibilities. But you *never* move things to conclusion. So this thread is an attempt to do so. Your "could" emails on this thread is antithetical to its origin. > But that also has implications and concerns, which I’m not seeing being > addressed in this discussion. > Then help drive it, rather than take a back seat. Drive a decision. Q: Does the IPMC want to produce non-ASF releases? -g