You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ripple.apache.org by Christian Grobmeier <cg...@grobmeier.de> on 2015/07/20 10:10:52 UTC
Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
To be honest, I am a bit concerned there was only Tim voting from the
project team.
Why didn't other members of Ripple not take the time to vote?
This will be a serious concern towards graduation of this project as we
need to demonstrate this project can survive on its own.
Cheers,
Christian
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015, at 08:53, Tim Barham wrote:
> Vote results are:
>
> IPMC votes: 2
> Ross Gardler
> Christian Grobmeier
>
> PPMC votes: 1
> Tim Barham
>
> Other votes: 1
> Arzhan Kinzhalin
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:12 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
>
> Sorry for my delayed vote. I haven't seen a result yet, so I just
> checked the release.
>
> It looks find for me: +1
>
> I have seen minor things which are not blocking: the NOTICE file
> contains 2012 as year. Maybe update to 2012 - 2015 with the next
> release.
> The sha file contains lower case numbers. But:
>
> gpg --print-md SHA512
>
> outputs uppercase letters. Not sure if there is a standard, but maybe we
> should include uppercase letters in the next sha file generation. Please
> note, I am not really into all that stuff, so this will work, but it saw
> it.
>
> Other than that: great job guys. Sorry once again for my delayed
> response. Lets hope others are quicker than I am!
>
> Christian
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 20:41, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay getting this out, everyone. Travel + other
> > distractions + my Mac not being hooked up. Thanks to Arzhan for a bunch
> > of work figuring out OpenLayers licenses. Anyway... here it is...
> >
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.30.
> >
> >
> >
> > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > http://1drv.ms/1H9yF5h. It was published from its corresponding git tag:
> >
> > incubator-ripple: 0.9.30 (7830f1ac70)
> >
> >
> >
> > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (another attempt
> > at our first official release!), we must be particularly careful that it
> > complies with all Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As such,
> > before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the
> > checklist at
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> >
> >
> >
> > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements,
> > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make
> > changes if necessary.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in order to
> > be confident in the release.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> >
> >
> >
> > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means three
> >
> > > IPMC members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> >
> > > management committee members. However, as a mentor (therefore having a
> >
> > > binding vote) I look to the project participants to indicate their
> >
> > > preference and (assuming no blocking issues on an IP check) I'll
> >
> > > always vote in support of the communities non- binding votes.
> >
> >
> >
> > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time to
> > review the release and vote!
> >
> >
> >
> > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be uploaded to
> > dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> >
> >
> >
> > I vote +1:
> >
> > * I verified build works and tests all pass.
> >
> > * I verified license headers with Apache RAT (via 'jake rat').
> >
> > * I manually verified all third party licenses in node_modules.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
RE: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release
0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Yes, it should be much easier moving forwards. Even easier still if people review patches fully as they go into the code-base.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham [mailto:Tim.Barham@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:14 PM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
The good news is that going forwards validating releases should be much easier, right? Since we only care about stuff added since the previous release (since we can hopefully assume the previous release was properly validated :) ).
Because we've had some significant input (including a very important bug fix from Julian) since 0.9.30 was packaged, I'm planning on putting together another package (hopefully today - once I test and merge the latest PRs and make the licensing changes mentioned by Justin) and starting *another* vote thread :).
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lintner [mailto:brent.lintner@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:27 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
No excuses on my part, here. :-(
However, my mind was in the same context that Ross mentioned, in that, I had checked out the release and wanted to vote +1, but, I had not gotten a chance or motivation (for that matter) to go in depth into the licensing and other aspects of checking the release, so I held off my vote as it felt superfluous. :-S
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 at 10:23 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> We know that the project has a minimal active contributor base. People
> have moved on, that's OK.
>
> I'd rather see people not vote than vote without doing proper
> validation because of restricted time.
>
> The whole point of getting a release out is to make it easier for
> others to engage as users and potentially contributors and committees.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Christian Grobmeier<ma...@grobmeier.de>
> Sent: 7/20/2015 1:11 AM
> To:
> dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release
> 0.9.30)
>
> To be honest, I am a bit concerned there was only Tim voting from the
> project team.
> Why didn't other members of Ripple not take the time to vote?
>
> This will be a serious concern towards graduation of this project as
> we need to demonstrate this project can survive on its own.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015, at 08:53, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Vote results are:
> >
> > IPMC votes: 2
> > Ross Gardler
> > Christian Grobmeier
> >
> > PPMC votes: 1
> > Tim Barham
> >
> > Other votes: 1
> > Arzhan Kinzhalin
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@apache.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:12 AM
> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
> >
> > Sorry for my delayed vote. I haven't seen a result yet, so I just
> > checked the release.
> >
> > It looks find for me: +1
> >
> > I have seen minor things which are not blocking: the NOTICE file
> > contains 2012 as year. Maybe update to 2012 - 2015 with the next
> > release.
> > The sha file contains lower case numbers. But:
> >
> > gpg --print-md SHA512
> >
> > outputs uppercase letters. Not sure if there is a standard, but
> > maybe we should include uppercase letters in the next sha file
> > generation. Please note, I am not really into all that stuff, so
> > this will work, but it saw it.
> >
> > Other than that: great job guys. Sorry once again for my delayed
> > response. Lets hope others are quicker than I am!
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 20:41, Tim Barham wrote:
> > > Sorry for the delay getting this out, everyone. Travel + other
> > > distractions + my Mac not being hooked up. Thanks to Arzhan for a
> > > bunch of work figuring out OpenLayers licenses. Anyway... here it is...
> > >
> > >
> > > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.30.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > > http://1drv.ms/1H9yF5h. It was published from its corresponding
> > > git
> tag:
> > >
> > > incubator-ripple: 0.9.30 (7830f1ac70)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (another
> attempt
> > > at our first official release!), we must be particularly careful
> > > that
> it
> > > complies with all Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As
> > > such, before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with
> > > the checklist at
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these
> > > requirements, please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can
> > > discuss and make changes if necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in
> > > order
> to
> > > be confident in the release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means
> > > > three
> > >
> > > > IPMC members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> > >
> > > > management committee members. However, as a mentor (therefore
> > > > having
> a
> > >
> > > > binding vote) I look to the project participants to indicate
> > > > their
> > >
> > > > preference and (assuming no blocking issues on an IP check) I'll
> > >
> > > > always vote in support of the communities non- binding votes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some
> > > time to review the release and vote!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be
> > > uploaded
> to
> > > dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I vote +1:
> > >
> > > * I verified build works and tests all pass.
> > >
> > > * I verified license headers with Apache RAT (via 'jake rat').
> > >
> > > * I manually verified all third party licenses in node_modules.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
>
RE: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release
0.9.30)
Posted by Tim Barham <Ti...@microsoft.com>.
The good news is that going forwards validating releases should be much easier, right? Since we only care about stuff added since the previous release (since we can hopefully assume the previous release was properly validated :) ).
Because we've had some significant input (including a very important bug fix from Julian) since 0.9.30 was packaged, I'm planning on putting together another package (hopefully today - once I test and merge the latest PRs and make the licensing changes mentioned by Justin) and starting *another* vote thread :).
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lintner [mailto:brent.lintner@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:27 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
No excuses on my part, here. :-(
However, my mind was in the same context that Ross mentioned, in that, I had checked out the release and wanted to vote +1, but, I had not gotten a chance or motivation (for that matter) to go in depth into the licensing and other aspects of checking the release, so I held off my vote as it felt superfluous. :-S
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 at 10:23 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> We know that the project has a minimal active contributor base. People
> have moved on, that's OK.
>
> I'd rather see people not vote than vote without doing proper
> validation because of restricted time.
>
> The whole point of getting a release out is to make it easier for
> others to engage as users and potentially contributors and committees.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Christian Grobmeier<ma...@grobmeier.de>
> Sent: 7/20/2015 1:11 AM
> To:
> dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release
> 0.9.30)
>
> To be honest, I am a bit concerned there was only Tim voting from the
> project team.
> Why didn't other members of Ripple not take the time to vote?
>
> This will be a serious concern towards graduation of this project as
> we need to demonstrate this project can survive on its own.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015, at 08:53, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Vote results are:
> >
> > IPMC votes: 2
> > Ross Gardler
> > Christian Grobmeier
> >
> > PPMC votes: 1
> > Tim Barham
> >
> > Other votes: 1
> > Arzhan Kinzhalin
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@apache.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:12 AM
> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
> >
> > Sorry for my delayed vote. I haven't seen a result yet, so I just
> > checked the release.
> >
> > It looks find for me: +1
> >
> > I have seen minor things which are not blocking: the NOTICE file
> > contains 2012 as year. Maybe update to 2012 - 2015 with the next
> > release.
> > The sha file contains lower case numbers. But:
> >
> > gpg --print-md SHA512
> >
> > outputs uppercase letters. Not sure if there is a standard, but
> > maybe we should include uppercase letters in the next sha file
> > generation. Please note, I am not really into all that stuff, so
> > this will work, but it saw it.
> >
> > Other than that: great job guys. Sorry once again for my delayed
> > response. Lets hope others are quicker than I am!
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 20:41, Tim Barham wrote:
> > > Sorry for the delay getting this out, everyone. Travel + other
> > > distractions + my Mac not being hooked up. Thanks to Arzhan for a
> > > bunch of work figuring out OpenLayers licenses. Anyway... here it is...
> > >
> > >
> > > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.30.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > > http://1drv.ms/1H9yF5h. It was published from its corresponding
> > > git
> tag:
> > >
> > > incubator-ripple: 0.9.30 (7830f1ac70)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (another
> attempt
> > > at our first official release!), we must be particularly careful
> > > that
> it
> > > complies with all Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As
> > > such, before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with
> > > the checklist at
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these
> > > requirements, please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can
> > > discuss and make changes if necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in
> > > order
> to
> > > be confident in the release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means
> > > > three
> > >
> > > > IPMC members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> > >
> > > > management committee members. However, as a mentor (therefore
> > > > having
> a
> > >
> > > > binding vote) I look to the project participants to indicate
> > > > their
> > >
> > > > preference and (assuming no blocking issues on an IP check) I'll
> > >
> > > > always vote in support of the communities non- binding votes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some
> > > time to review the release and vote!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be
> > > uploaded
> to
> > > dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I vote +1:
> > >
> > > * I verified build works and tests all pass.
> > >
> > > * I verified license headers with Apache RAT (via 'jake rat').
> > >
> > > * I manually verified all third party licenses in node_modules.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
>
Re: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
No excuses on my part, here. :-(
However, my mind was in the same context that Ross mentioned, in that, I
had checked out the release and wanted to vote +1, but, I had not gotten a
chance or motivation (for that matter) to go in depth into the licensing
and other aspects of checking the release, so I held off my vote as it felt
superfluous. :-S
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 at 10:23 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> We know that the project has a minimal active contributor base. People
> have moved on, that's OK.
>
> I'd rather see people not vote than vote without doing proper validation
> because of restricted time.
>
> The whole point of getting a release out is to make it easier for others
> to engage as users and potentially contributors and committees.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Christian Grobmeier<ma...@grobmeier.de>
> Sent: 7/20/2015 1:11 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release
> 0.9.30)
>
> To be honest, I am a bit concerned there was only Tim voting from the
> project team.
> Why didn't other members of Ripple not take the time to vote?
>
> This will be a serious concern towards graduation of this project as we
> need to demonstrate this project can survive on its own.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015, at 08:53, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Vote results are:
> >
> > IPMC votes: 2
> > Ross Gardler
> > Christian Grobmeier
> >
> > PPMC votes: 1
> > Tim Barham
> >
> > Other votes: 1
> > Arzhan Kinzhalin
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@apache.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:12 AM
> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
> >
> > Sorry for my delayed vote. I haven't seen a result yet, so I just
> > checked the release.
> >
> > It looks find for me: +1
> >
> > I have seen minor things which are not blocking: the NOTICE file
> > contains 2012 as year. Maybe update to 2012 - 2015 with the next
> > release.
> > The sha file contains lower case numbers. But:
> >
> > gpg --print-md SHA512
> >
> > outputs uppercase letters. Not sure if there is a standard, but maybe we
> > should include uppercase letters in the next sha file generation. Please
> > note, I am not really into all that stuff, so this will work, but it saw
> > it.
> >
> > Other than that: great job guys. Sorry once again for my delayed
> > response. Lets hope others are quicker than I am!
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 20:41, Tim Barham wrote:
> > > Sorry for the delay getting this out, everyone. Travel + other
> > > distractions + my Mac not being hooked up. Thanks to Arzhan for a bunch
> > > of work figuring out OpenLayers licenses. Anyway... here it is...
> > >
> > >
> > > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.30.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > > http://1drv.ms/1H9yF5h. It was published from its corresponding git
> tag:
> > >
> > > incubator-ripple: 0.9.30 (7830f1ac70)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (another
> attempt
> > > at our first official release!), we must be particularly careful that
> it
> > > complies with all Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As such,
> > > before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the
> > > checklist at
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements,
> > > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make
> > > changes if necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in order
> to
> > > be confident in the release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means three
> > >
> > > > IPMC members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> > >
> > > > management committee members. However, as a mentor (therefore having
> a
> > >
> > > > binding vote) I look to the project participants to indicate their
> > >
> > > > preference and (assuming no blocking issues on an IP check) I'll
> > >
> > > > always vote in support of the communities non- binding votes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time to
> > > review the release and vote!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be uploaded
> to
> > > dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I vote +1:
> > >
> > > * I verified build works and tests all pass.
> > >
> > > * I verified license headers with Apache RAT (via 'jake rat').
> > >
> > > * I manually verified all third party licenses in node_modules.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
>
RE: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release
0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
We know that the project has a minimal active contributor base. People have moved on, that's OK.
I'd rather see people not vote than vote without doing proper validation because of restricted time.
The whole point of getting a release out is to make it easier for others to engage as users and potentially contributors and committees.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Christian Grobmeier<ma...@grobmeier.de>
Sent: 7/20/2015 1:11 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<ma...@ripple.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Why didn't you vote? (was: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
To be honest, I am a bit concerned there was only Tim voting from the
project team.
Why didn't other members of Ripple not take the time to vote?
This will be a serious concern towards graduation of this project as we
need to demonstrate this project can survive on its own.
Cheers,
Christian
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015, at 08:53, Tim Barham wrote:
> Vote results are:
>
> IPMC votes: 2
> Ross Gardler
> Christian Grobmeier
>
> PPMC votes: 1
> Tim Barham
>
> Other votes: 1
> Arzhan Kinzhalin
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:12 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
>
> Sorry for my delayed vote. I haven't seen a result yet, so I just
> checked the release.
>
> It looks find for me: +1
>
> I have seen minor things which are not blocking: the NOTICE file
> contains 2012 as year. Maybe update to 2012 - 2015 with the next
> release.
> The sha file contains lower case numbers. But:
>
> gpg --print-md SHA512
>
> outputs uppercase letters. Not sure if there is a standard, but maybe we
> should include uppercase letters in the next sha file generation. Please
> note, I am not really into all that stuff, so this will work, but it saw
> it.
>
> Other than that: great job guys. Sorry once again for my delayed
> response. Lets hope others are quicker than I am!
>
> Christian
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015, at 20:41, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay getting this out, everyone. Travel + other
> > distractions + my Mac not being hooked up. Thanks to Arzhan for a bunch
> > of work figuring out OpenLayers licenses. Anyway... here it is...
> >
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.30.
> >
> >
> >
> > The package you are voting on is available for review at
> > http://1drv.ms/1H9yF5h. It was published from its corresponding git tag:
> >
> > incubator-ripple: 0.9.30 (7830f1ac70)
> >
> >
> >
> > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (another attempt
> > at our first official release!), we must be particularly careful that it
> > complies with all Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As such,
> > before voting +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the
> > checklist at
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> >
> >
> >
> > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements,
> > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make
> > changes if necessary.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in order to
> > be confident in the release.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> >
> >
> >
> > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means three
> >
> > > IPMC members. Once a project graduates it means three project
> >
> > > management committee members. However, as a mentor (therefore having a
> >
> > > binding vote) I look to the project participants to indicate their
> >
> > > preference and (assuming no blocking issues on an IP check) I'll
> >
> > > always vote in support of the communities non- binding votes.
> >
> >
> >
> > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time to
> > review the release and vote!
> >
> >
> >
> > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be uploaded to
> > dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> >
> >
> >
> > I vote +1:
> >
> > * I verified build works and tests all pass.
> >
> > * I verified license headers with Apache RAT (via 'jake rat').
> >
> > * I manually verified all third party licenses in node_modules.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >