We could start with your previous post, and maybe take a portion of Monday's IRC Chat to go over Q&A or clarifications ? Does that sound good ?
- Luciano On 10/7/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to state up front there that I don't think you did any thing wrong or inappropriate. Far from it; I think you did exactly the right thing. During the vote you said you didn't have sufficient experience to make criticism and could we schedule a walkthrough; others agreed with them. This is a fairly major issue as it shows that we do not have a common understanding of what we are releasing here. We had some discussion on the list on both the technical and process aspects but I did not think that we had achieved that common understanding; from your comment below . So, although procedurally we may have had enough votes, IMO we did not have consensus on this release due to this unresolved issue and that's a serious enough problem that we should not release at this time. I'd vote -1, but as the person who initiated the vote that would be odd so I abandoned it. The task now is resolving the issue at hand - we need to come up with a process for this release that we all understand and agree on. I'd posted on the technical and process sides of what was going on last week so perhaps that would be the place to start. If not, other suggestions would be welcome -- Jeremy On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:19 AM, kelvin goodson wrote: > It was not my intention to force a rethink. All I asked for, at a > time > when the vote was going slowly, was some assistance in > understanding the > technical detail of the artifacts in order that I might further the > voting > process. As I understood the procedure, the vote could be carried > by n +1s > (3 i think) and no -1s, so we soon passed that mark. Once the vote > had > passed the criteria i did not feel the immediate need to press for > further > explanation, yet i still did not feel in a position to make a well > informed > judgement. A core of people have given this a +1 and I trust that > this > indicates the artifacts are good. On that basis, if the voting > process > requires me to give an explit +1 for the vote to be carried then I > am happy > to do so. I'm not trying to be at all awkward here, quite the > reverse in > fact. > > Regards, Kelvin. > > > > On 06/10/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: >> >> > This got PPMC +1's from jboynes, dkulp, jmarino, rineholt, rfeng, >> > bdaniel, kwilliams >> > and +1 from Luciano Resende >> > >> > However, there are significant abstentions from antelder, >> > kelvingoodson and svkrish on the basis that the purpose of >> > releasing this is unclear. >> > >> > In light of this confusion I think it would be unwise to proceed to >> > the IPMC and so am going to withdraw these artifacts. We need to >> > come up with an alternative plan for the release which everyone is >> > clear on. >> > >> This is unfortunate. Perhaps someone can propose an alternative >> approach or the abstainers could post specific questions that would >> clear up their uncertainty? >> >> Jim >> > -- >> > Jeremy >> > >> > On Oct 2, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: >> > >> >> The parent pom and buildtools are pre-reqs for all other Java >> >> projects in the M2 release. These are distributed through the >> >> maven repo rather than as a end-user distribution. Please vote to >> >> approve the release content: >> >> >> >> parent-pom >> >> [tag] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/ >> >> java-pom-parent/1 >> >> [binary] http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/ >> >> org/apache/tuscany/parent/1-incubator/ >> >> >> >> buildtools >> >> [tag] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/ >> >> java-buildtools/1.0-incubator-M2 >> >> [binary] http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/ >> >> org/apache/tuscany/buildtools/1.0-incubator-M2/ >> >> >> >> Here's my +1 >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
