Larry Isaacs wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:28 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 3.3 Release Plan
> >
> >
> > Jon Stevens wrote:
> > >
> > > > It should be noted that when this plan comes up for a vote, a +1
> > > > by a committer will constitute a commitment not only to helping
> > > > with the release, but to provide maintenance support beyond the
> > > > release.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that I agree with this. What if I want to state my
> > > approval, but don't want to help out?
> >
> > The consensus seems to be that in the context of a release
> > vote, a "+0"
> > means I agree but may not contribute, and "+1" means I agree
> > and will help.
> >
> > It looks like Larry is trying to keep up with the latest
> > proposal on the
> > jakarta mailing list, as maintained by Ted Husted. Ted
> > originally tried to
> > make a case for a separate set of indicators for approval and
> > committed to
> > make it happen (his specific proposal was a "binding"
> > suffix), but that was
> > voted down in favor of the simpler -1/-0/+0/+1 scheme.
> >
> > Even though Ted's overall proposal hasn't been ratified, this
> > particular
> > provision makes sense to me as there was much concern
> > expressed over the
> > lack of support for previous releases.
>
> My understanding it that the text "but to provide maintenance support
> beyond the release" is a requirement for this release. Is this
> accurate?
>
> If so, we may need a way to distinguish between those who are and
> aren't committing to maintenance. Both of these +1's should be
> counted when comparing against -1's. I wouldn't want to lose
> any potential +1's because they didn't want to commit to maintenance.
> Whether there are the 3 required committers for maintenance should
> be a separate issue.
>
(This really belongs back on GENERAL because it's cross-subproject, but I will
throw my $0.02 here).
IMHO, having people vote +0 instead of +1 if they like the idea but don't have
time to support it is *precisely* what you want. Otherwise, you can get into a
scenario of a ton of +1s that say "great idea, as long as someone else does all
the work", and where does that leave you?
I would want to know that ahead of time, before I started setting user
expectations that something was going to be completed soon, on the theory that
all those +1-ers were going to pitch in and help.
If a release plan gets two +1s, twenty +0s, and one -1 (all from committers,
because they are the only votes that count), should the release plan *really*
move forward? I would suggest not ... the two +1 folks are not going to be able
to accomplish all the work.
If a release plan gets twenty +1s, two +0s, and one -1 (all from committers
again), but the +1s don't really mean "I will help make this happen", where does
that leave you? I took over as RM in a scenario almost that bad, and the
required work doesn't get done, or is not completed in a timely manner.
The common cliche is "put your money where your mouth is". For voting on
release plans, I think the appropriate cliche is "put your effort where your +1
is".
>
> Perhaps the vote should include voting for plan approval and a
> separate indication of willingness to do maintenance?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Larry
>
Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
