> "a release which is made without sufficient +1's votes" has generated a bit
> of confusion among some Xerces-J committers.
Yes - I kind of expected this.
> Historically, the project has (with one or two lapses) generally worked by
> having a release manager send a note to the Xerces-J development list some
> time before a release, proposing a release and inviting anyone with
> concerns to air them. Silence has always been interpreted as consent, and
> the releases have gone ahead accordingly.
Correct and I am aware of this. And I want to confirm that this is a
procedure which:
-> is developed by the community - and that is entirely
correct; each group has a lot of leeway to do so.
-> seems to works well and serve the community well.
However 'real live(tm)' does increasingly expect us to be as 'above board'
as possible with respect to auditability in order to allow the ASF to
continue to provide its legal protection to our developers.
> Are we to assume that the idea that silence is consent is no longer
> sufficient?
Well - ideally we want to show[1] 'active' oversight by the peers. And
silent consent is not quite that.
So having at least a handful of +1's in the final days leading up to the
tagging of the tree and the final tar ball would be a good start. So the
most minimal thing would be do things exactly as they are today; but
include at the very end a 'show of hands' to confirm that this is THE
release and we all OK it. Note that I am not (yet) asking for those pople
to do laborious things like signing the release tar ball - just some
documentation on the mailing list.
Dw
[1]: Show, as in, lawyers need to be able to go back into places
like mail archives and find such deceision artificats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
