On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> The RC7 vote is a little confusing. Since there are a number of other >> projects that are interested in the ODF Toolkit, we cc'ed them all in >> the vote thread, along with this list and the Incubator general list. >> That, coupled with this being our first release, has lead to a "messy" >> voting thread. For example: >> >> 1) We have a +1 from Yegor, but that made it only to the Tika dev list >> >> http://markmail.org/message/4syron6anolleqlk >> >> 2) We have several +1's from PPMC members here on odf-dev >> >> 3) We have one +1 from a PPMC member to odf-private >> >> 4) We have no +1's from IPMC members on this list or on the Incubator >> general list :-( > > Yegor is on the IPMC. Mentors must be on the IPMC. He did not state that his > vote was "binding" - but I *think* that is implicit. > > BTW - I've just been elected to the IPMC to be a Mentor for Apache Flex. >
Cool. Congratulations. >> >> My guess is the cc'ing to multiple lists may have caused some confusion. > > It certainly did. > >> >> What is the best practice here? Send to only to general@incubator and >> cc odf-dev? Should we be posting our (non-binding) votes and test >> summaries to general@incubator rather than odf-dev? > > What I've seen is that the vote occurs on the project's dev list first. Then > a vote - results email on odf-dev. Then an IPMC vote on [email protected]. > We did that on the initial RC: http://markmail.org/message/6qt5igqggkj66e7d Then Yegor took a look and found some issues that we needed to fix. We've been iterating on that since, now up to RC7, which Yegor did give a +1 to. I hope we don't need to have a separate 1 week PPMC vote on each RC, even if we're making only small changes to address reported issues from the previous ballot. I thought I saw something on the incubator general list about just kicking off an IPMC vote in that case, for subsequent RC's. > In the future if we want to tell other projects about our votes let's make > that a separate email. IMO a subject like "[FYI] Voting on a release > candidate for ODFToolkit" would be helpful and clearly not the [VOTE] thread. > > Everyone has different filter rules on their mail and are on more than one > project. Mine came into poi-dev, I guess Yegor has Tika before Poi and ODF on > his filter list. Let this be a lesson learned about cross posting.a VOTE > thread. > >> Any ideas on how to get this vote back on track? > > Put the results together in a [VOTE][RESULTS] email for odf-dev. > The weird thing here is we have not received as many PPMC votes as we did with RC1. I think the impression some have is that their votes from RC1 still stand, and we're just waiting for IPMC votes now. So they didn't vote again. > Then send a [VOTE] thread for the IPMC votes to [email protected]. > > Here's an example from ManifoldCF: > >> Hello Incubator IPMC, >> >> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.4-incubating, >> RC2. This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection. >> You can find the artifact at >> http://people.apache.org/~kwright/apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, or >> in svn at >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/tags/release-0.4-incubating-RC2. >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Karl > > > Wait for the IPMC to vote - theirs are the binding votes. > > If they don't like how the vote was run then they'll certainly let us know. > If you are not subscribed now to [email protected] you ought to be during the > vote. > > Does this make sense? Let's turn in our homework even if it is not perfect ;-) > I agree that the above makes sense. This particular instance was a weird one. It sounds like posting a summary of result to-date of the RC7 vote, including PPMC votes and mentor votes, to the general list, with a little explanation, might help. > Regards, > Dave, > > who has a execstackoverflow in a postscript file to debug plus a work release > to do in the next couple of days or I would have done more research on this > question. > > >> >> -Rob >
