Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Dave Fisher
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: > > > >> Maybe we need to ask for review of >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the same >> time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken literally, a >> PMC member

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Pedro Lino
Maybe we need to ask for review of http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a +1 vote, because their vote is binding and a

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Carl Marcum
On 10/18/2017 07:18 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote: On 19 Oct 2017, at 9:39 am, Carl Marcum wrote: Question.. If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether stated explicitly or not? Yes, Gav… Thanks Gavin !!

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Carl Marcum
On 10/18/2017 07:21 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Carl Marcum wrote: If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether stated explicitly or not? Yes, it should. People add "binding" as a shorthand to mean "I am from the PMC" since a release cannot be approved without

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Carl Marcum
On 10/18/2017 07:16 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: On 10/18/2017 3:39 PM, Carl Marcum wrote: Question.. If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether stated explicitly or not? The vote counting is really only for ASF rule conformance. The way it really works

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Andrea Pescetti
Carl Marcum wrote: If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether stated explicitly or not? Yes, it should. People add "binding" as a shorthand to mean "I am from the PMC" since a release cannot be approved without reaching 3 votes from the PMC, and it must be

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Gavin McDonald
> On 19 Oct 2017, at 9:39 am, Carl Marcum wrote: > > > Question.. > If a PMC member cast a vote should it always be counted as binding whether > stated explicitly or not? Yes, Gav… > - To

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Patricia Shanahan
On 10/18/2017 3:39 PM, Carl Marcum wrote: On 10/18/2017 03:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: We expect PMC members to have a deep sense of responsibility to their projects. When they cast a binding vote, we trust that they have satisfied themselves enough to warrant them casting the vote. That,

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Carl Marcum
On 10/18/2017 03:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: We expect PMC members to have a deep sense of responsibility to their projects. When they cast a binding vote, we trust that they have satisfied themselves enough to warrant them casting the vote. That, alone, should be sufficient, imo.

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Pedro Lino
So the practice is much saner than the theory and nobody discarded Larry's -1 saying it was not coming from a PMC member. Any correctly justified -1 will of course be treated in the same way, regardless of who casts it. I'm aware of that. That is exactly why I applauded AOO's PMC members

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Dave Fisher
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > On 10/18/2017 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: >> On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... >>> I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Patricia Shanahan
On 10/18/2017 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against"

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Andrea Pescetti
Pedro Lino wrote: I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure and confirm that it works. ... In any case I couldn't find that particular requirement for a PMC member in the voting page (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). Maybe that is being too strict?

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Dave Fisher
Hi Pedro, > On Oct 18, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: > > Hi Dave, all > >> (1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at all >> because I did not build from source etc. > > I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Marcus
Am 18.10.2017 um 22:35 schrieb Pedro Lino: Hi Dave, all (1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at all because I did not build from source etc. I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure and confirm that it works. Replicability is a

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Pedro Lino
Hi Dave, all (1) PMC members have a higher bar for their vote. I did not vote at all because I did not build from source etc. I agree that it is good that some users replicate the building procedure and confirm that it works. Replicability is a good measure of transparency and quality. In

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Dave Fisher
Hi Pedro, > On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: > > On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >> This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... I >> mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to >>

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Pedro Lino
On 18/10/2017 19:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of what they did to justify their +1. But this shouldn't be used "against" them. +1 (as a user) ASF does a hell of a

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
We expect PMC members to have a deep sense of responsibility to their projects. When they cast a binding vote, we trust that they have satisfied themselves enough to warrant them casting the vote. That, alone, should be sufficient, imo.

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Roberto Galoppini
2017-10-18 20:02 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti : > Keith N. McKenna wrote: > >> Even though he is a PMC member his vote cannot be counted as binding as >> he did not build from source as is required by Apache Policy. >> > > This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Andrea Pescetti
Keith N. McKenna wrote: Even though he is a PMC member his vote cannot be counted as binding as he did not build from source as is required by Apache Policy. This is OK as long as the Apache Policy doesn't get in the way too much... I mean, I highly appreciate when people provide a list of

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Kay Schenk
On 10/18/2017 09:29 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: On 10/18/2017 11:49 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: Kazunari Hirano (khirano) is on the Apache OpenOffice PMC so his vote should be included in "binding" . MzK "Only the truth will save you now." -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress" On Oct

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Keith N. McKenna
On 10/18/2017 11:49 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: > Kazunari Hirano (khirano) is on the Apache OpenOffice PMC so his vote > should be included in "binding" . > > > MzK > > "Only the truth will save you now." > -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress" > > > > On Oct 17, 2017 18:09, "Carl Marcum"

Re: AOO 4.1.4 – Error message

2017-10-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
Ah. Will do. > On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:16 PM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 18.10.2017 um 18:09 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> I've updated the Bugz entry w/ the background. > > I was thinking of: >

Re: AOO 4.1.4 – Error message

2017-10-18 Thread Matthias Seidel
Am 18.10.2017 um 18:09 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > I've updated the Bugz entry w/ the background. I was thinking of: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.1.4/unxmacos/ Matthias > >> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Matthias Seidel >>

Re: AOO 4.1.4 – Error message

2017-10-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
I've updated the Bugz entry w/ the background. > On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 17.10.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Peter kovacs: >> Cool! >> >> Can you write shortly which files you have changed (or the svn revision >> number)? I would like

Re: AOO 4.1.4 – Error message

2017-10-18 Thread Matthias Seidel
Am 17.10.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Peter kovacs: > Cool! > > Can you write shortly which files you have changed (or the svn revision > number)? I would like to understand and learn. Thanks! Only the build script was changed, no files in source... @Jim: Could you update the build script/log in our

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.4-RC5 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Kay Schenk
Kazunari Hirano (khirano) is on the Apache OpenOffice PMC so his vote should be included in "binding" . MzK "Only the truth will save you now." -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress" On Oct 17, 2017 18:09, "Carl Marcum" wrote: Voting Results +1: 13 0: 0 -1: 0