You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com> on 2001/01/26 04:27:57 UTC
Release Plan clarifications (2)
I would recommend that the PMC submit the following clarifications by
email to all Jarkarta Developer lists:
Clarification of voting flavors on an action item
-----------------------------------------------------
+1 ="The action should be performed, and I will help."
+0 = "Abstain. I support the action but I can't help."
-0 = "Abstain. I don't support the action but I can't help with an
alternative."
-1 = "The action should not be performed and I am offering an
explanation or alternative."
Clarification of Release Plan votes vs. Release votes
-----------------------------------------------------
A +1 vote on a Release Plan means the Committer agrees to help with the
implementation of the plan only. A +1 vote on the Release means the
Committer agrees to help with the support (bug fixes, answering user
questions, etc.) of the released product, to the extent of their
ability.
A -1 vote on an action requiring a majority decision, including most
issues in a Release Plan and any Release, is * not * a veto.
A member submitting an action for majority vote (e.g. nominating a
final release candidate), should include a time period for the vote,
which should not be less than 120 hours (5 days). Thereafter, the
result of the vote should be announced, and the action performed if
approved.
Clarification of Vetos
-----------------------------------------------------
A valid and binding veto on a consenus action may not be overruled by
the subproject Committers, but, upon request, may be reviewed by the
PMC who may rescind a veto upon a 3/4's vote of all PMC members.
Further updates
-----------------------------------------------------
An update to the guidelines is being discussed on the General list. All
members are invited to participate. See <
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html > for a link to the
latest draft proposal.
-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Custom Software ~ Technical Services.
-- Tel 716 425-0252; Fax 716 223-2506.
-- http://www.husted.com/about/struts/
Re: Release Plan clarifications (2)
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
So, I found the Apache source document for the Jakarta guidelines at <
http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html >.
It's interesting to note that at the foot it says:
--
Addendum: Outstanding issues with this document
+ We may need a better definition for "lazy consensus".
+ We should clarify under what conditions a veto can be rescinded or
overridden.
+ Should we set a time limit on vetos of patches? Two weeks?
--
I also note that there was some language in the original guidelines
that has been left out of the Jakarta version, which I will bring up
under another thread tonight. [Sounds of hundreds of list subscribers
lunging for the unsub link]
-Ted.
Re: Release Plan clarifications (2)
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/25/01 7:50 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would like to see -1 mean something like
> "The action should not be performed and I am offering an explanation and an
> alternative."
Explanation is fine, but alternatives aren't always available. And sometimes
some suggestions things can be overruled without a suggestion. For instance,
a -1 on addition an HTTP method of SOMEOTHERMETHOD to Tomcat. That just gets
a "-1, out of spec compliance"... No alternative needed.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Re: Release Plan clarifications (2)
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/25/01 7:50 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> I would like to see -1 mean something like
> "The action should not be performed and I am offering an explanation and an
> alternative."
>
> The problem is that sometimes it will occur that a product change will be
> blocked by someone who agrees that the feature is necessary but doesn't
> like the implementation but is not willing to offer thoughts/efforts on
> alternate implementations.
I agree. However, I would say that the alternative doesn't have to be a
solution, it can simply be a suggestion. However, if it is only a suggestion
and the solution is a major amount of work, then the person giving the -1
should be ask to give a -0 instead.
This covers the case of Sam giving me a -1 for putting .jar's in CVS and my
response being that there is no other alternative today. :-)
-jon
Re: Release Plan clarifications (2)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 10:27 25/1/01 -0500, Ted Husted wrote:
>I would recommend that the PMC submit the following clarifications by
>email to all Jarkarta Developer lists:
>
>Clarification of voting flavors on an action item
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>+1 ="The action should be performed, and I will help."
>+0 = "Abstain. I support the action but I can't help."
>-0 = "Abstain. I don't support the action but I can't help with an
>alternative."
>-1 = "The action should not be performed and I am offering an
>explanation or alternative."
I would like to see -1 mean something like
"The action should not be performed and I am offering an explanation and an
alternative."
The problem is that sometimes it will occur that a product change will be
blocked by someone who agrees that the feature is necessary but doesn't
like the implementation but is not willing to offer thoughts/efforts on
alternate implementations.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: Release Plan clarifications (2)
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/25/01 7:27 PM, "Ted Husted" <ne...@husted.com> wrote:
> I would recommend that the PMC submit the following clarifications by
> email to all Jarkarta Developer lists:
Actually, I think a reminder email to people that the discussion is going on
here that's a paragraph long should be sufficient.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()