Upayavira, once again thanks for the reply and patience. In other words, in this particular case, votes from non-PMC are just a special form of "power" feedback and nothing more. PMC can ignore them if they like - of course, with all the consequences that position could generate on the community, but that's another story :-)
My questions/doubts on this one were mainly an attempt to understand how the process *actually* works since I (and I think some of the "voters") thought that we were actually voting, not just providing feedback <newbie mistake probably>. --- Suggestion: How could we avoid this "confusion" or misguided "expectation"? 1) Send new "members" (like me) read the manuals by for example including on the first message a link to the help/support page where the decision process is explained http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html (for future reference of those following this conversation) 2) Clearly identify what we are asking for and from whom. "Should we release this new version" (feedback) is completely different from "Vote for releasing this new version" (an actual decision/vote). --- I hope these questions, replies/answers, doubts and suggestions helped us improve the process. </END MESSING WITH THE RELEASE THREAD> Back to the release "voting" process... go for it Ali and Apache Wave team. Alfredo http://alfredo.abambres.com *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013, at 08:34 PM, Alfredo Abambres wrote: > > Upayavira: Thanks for your explanation. > > > > A doubt: if everybody else voted "-1" and you got three "+1" from PMC, > > the > > release would be approved? > > I would expect the -1 votes to be properly evaluated. If they are valid, > I would expect those on the PMC to change their votes to -1 until they > are resolved. > > But note, at this point, we're 90% concerned with legal matters, and 10% > concerned with technical ones. So a technical concern might not be > sufficient reason to hold back a release in this case, while that might > be more reasonable in subsequent releases. > > Upayavira >
