You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ripple.apache.org by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> on 2015/08/10 01:37:20 UTC
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Ross,
It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A
new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
2. This vote was never summarized.
If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where
I can find the email with the relevant information.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:44 PM Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> The Ripple project has voted on a release but we are short one IPMC vote.
> Can someone on the IPMC please review the release package and vote (see
> details below).
>
> Thanks
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Barham [mailto:Tim.Barham@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 11:53 PM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
>
> 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Yes, that's what I meant. I don't agree with the need (if 3 IPMC votes are available in the podling), just as the board is not notified of TLP votes. However, I do agree the policy is currently that the IPMC is notified.
I have always notified the IPMC, and will continue to do so while the policy is as currently written.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 7:15 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread.
I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging Ripple into a wider Incubator discussion, but copying only the RESULT email would pose a problem.
The full IPMC must be given the opportunity to review any release, because Apache does not allow subsets of a PMC to approve a release.
What would work fine is for Ripple to copy the initial VOTE thread to general@incubator. That has been done a number of times in the past.
Marvin Humphrey
RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Yes, that's what I meant. I don't agree with the need (if 3 IPMC votes are available in the podling), just as the board is not notified of TLP votes. However, I do agree the policy is currently that the IPMC is notified.
I have always notified the IPMC, and will continue to do so while the policy is as currently written.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 7:15 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread.
I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging Ripple into a wider Incubator discussion, but copying only the RESULT email would pose a problem.
The full IPMC must be given the opportunity to review any release, because Apache does not allow subsets of a PMC to approve a release.
What would work fine is for Ripple to copy the initial VOTE thread to general@incubator. That has been done a number of times in the past.
Marvin Humphrey
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread.
I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging Ripple into a wider Incubator
discussion, but copying only the RESULT email would pose a problem.
The full IPMC must be given the opportunity to review any release,
because Apache does not allow subsets of a PMC to approve a release.
What would work fine is for Ripple to copy the initial VOTE thread to
general@incubator. That has been done a number of times in the past.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread.
I'm trying really hard to avoid dragging Ripple into a wider Incubator
discussion, but copying only the RESULT email would pose a problem.
The full IPMC must be given the opportunity to review any release,
because Apache does not allow subsets of a PMC to approve a release.
What would work fine is for Ripple to copy the initial VOTE thread to
general@incubator. That has been done a number of times in the past.
Marvin Humphrey
RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Marvin Humphrey<ma...@rectangular.com>
Sent: 8/9/2015 5:55 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<ma...@ripple.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's
> an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
> report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
> the [RESULT] emails).
Thanks for your diligence in pursuing the task of collecting our
releases, which I know is the most tedious part of being Report
Manager. :)
> I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
> to close the vote thread.
Ross's email crossed mine and points to the podling dev list. To
close the matter proactively, I'll take the liberty of extracting the
summary and presenting it here:
IPMC +1
Ross Gardler
Christian Grobmeier
Jan Iversen
Justin Mclean
PPMC +1
Tim Barham
Community +1
Arzhan Kinzhalin
Ripple community: congrats on your 0.9.30 release!
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Thank you Marvin. John I note that you use this as part of your due diligence process. On the next release we will copy the result vote to the general thread.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Marvin Humphrey<ma...@rectangular.com>
Sent: 8/9/2015 5:55 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<ma...@ripple.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's
> an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
> report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
> the [RESULT] emails).
Thanks for your diligence in pursuing the task of collecting our
releases, which I know is the most tedious part of being Report
Manager. :)
> I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
> to close the vote thread.
Ross's email crossed mine and points to the podling dev list. To
close the matter proactively, I'll take the liberty of extracting the
summary and presenting it here:
IPMC +1
Ross Gardler
Christian Grobmeier
Jan Iversen
Justin Mclean
PPMC +1
Tim Barham
Community +1
Arzhan Kinzhalin
Ripple community: congrats on your 0.9.30 release!
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's
> an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
> report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
> the [RESULT] emails).
Thanks for your diligence in pursuing the task of collecting our
releases, which I know is the most tedious part of being Report
Manager. :)
> I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
> to close the vote thread.
Ross's email crossed mine and points to the podling dev list. To
close the matter proactively, I'll take the liberty of extracting the
summary and presenting it here:
IPMC +1
Ross Gardler
Christian Grobmeier
Jan Iversen
Justin Mclean
PPMC +1
Tim Barham
Community +1
Arzhan Kinzhalin
Ripple community: congrats on your 0.9.30 release!
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's
> an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
> report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
> the [RESULT] emails).
Thanks for your diligence in pursuing the task of collecting our
releases, which I know is the most tedious part of being Report
Manager. :)
> I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
> to close the vote thread.
Ross's email crossed mine and points to the podling dev list. To
close the matter proactively, I'll take the liberty of extracting the
summary and presenting it here:
IPMC +1
Ross Gardler
Christian Grobmeier
Jan Iversen
Justin Mclean
PPMC +1
Tim Barham
Community +1
Arzhan Kinzhalin
Ripple community: congrats on your 0.9.30 release!
Marvin Humphrey
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:07 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Ross,
> >
> > It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
> >
> > 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
> > asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done.
> A
> > new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
> > The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
> >
> > 2. This vote was never summarized.
> >
> > If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to
> where
> > I can find the email with the relevant information.
>
> John,
>
> Ripple is a podling that has had more than its share of challenges. Can we
> please pursue solutions rather than enumerate trangressions?
>
> Even if the VOTE thread did not hew strictly to the template, the IPMC has
> been given a chance to review the release candidate and I would argue that
> the
> thread is within the letter of policy. If we get an email to
> general@incubator closing the VOTE thread, I think we should call it a
> day and
> wish them hearty congratulations on their release.
>
Marvin,
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's
an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
the [RESULT] emails).
We've had issues in the past where podlings with three active mentors all
vote +1 on the dev list and tried to announce the release. This smells
like this approach, though I do appreciate that the contents were at least
put in front of the incubator. The incubator has defined provisions to
allow for an alternate release process that gives the PPMC more governance
once they have a practice down. I'd strongly recommend that any podling
who wants to follow that process attempt to adopt the 2013 Alternate Voting
process.
I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
to close the vote thread.
John
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:07 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Ross,
> >
> > It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
> >
> > 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
> > asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done.
> A
> > new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
> > The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
> >
> > 2. This vote was never summarized.
> >
> > If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to
> where
> > I can find the email with the relevant information.
>
> John,
>
> Ripple is a podling that has had more than its share of challenges. Can we
> please pursue solutions rather than enumerate trangressions?
>
> Even if the VOTE thread did not hew strictly to the template, the IPMC has
> been given a chance to review the release candidate and I would argue that
> the
> thread is within the letter of policy. If we get an email to
> general@incubator closing the VOTE thread, I think we should call it a
> day and
> wish them hearty congratulations on their release.
>
Marvin,
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not about to shoot this release down. It's
an observation from trying to reconcile the releases in dist w/ the monthly
report list to ensure everything looks right (since I typically go against
the [RESULT] emails).
We've had issues in the past where podlings with three active mentors all
vote +1 on the dev list and tried to announce the release. This smells
like this approach, though I do appreciate that the contents were at least
put in front of the incubator. The incubator has defined provisions to
allow for an alternate release process that gives the PPMC more governance
once they have a practice down. I'd strongly recommend that any podling
who wants to follow that process attempt to adopt the 2013 Alternate Voting
process.
I would still appreciate it if the podling sends a [RESULT] vote to general@
to close the vote thread.
John
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ross,
>
> It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
>
> 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
> asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A
> new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
> The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
>
> 2. This vote was never summarized.
>
> If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where
> I can find the email with the relevant information.
John,
Ripple is a podling that has had more than its share of challenges. Can we
please pursue solutions rather than enumerate trangressions?
Even if the VOTE thread did not hew strictly to the template, the IPMC has
been given a chance to review the release candidate and I would argue that the
thread is within the letter of policy. If we get an email to
general@incubator closing the VOTE thread, I think we should call it a day and
wish them hearty congratulations on their release.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 4:37 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ross,
>
> It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
>
> 1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
> asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A
> new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
> The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
>
> 2. This vote was never summarized.
>
> If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where
> I can find the email with the relevant information.
John,
Ripple is a podling that has had more than its share of challenges. Can we
please pursue solutions rather than enumerate trangressions?
Even if the VOTE thread did not hew strictly to the template, the IPMC has
been given a chance to review the release candidate and I would argue that the
thread is within the letter of policy. If we get an email to
general@incubator closing the VOTE thread, I think we should call it a day and
wish them hearty congratulations on their release.
Marvin Humphrey
RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Your observations are correct. Though I disagree with the interpretation of policy (this was the topic of a recent thread on the general list).
We have 4 IPMC votes. The summary is on the PPMC list where the project is managed.
Feel free to cast a -1 and invoke the IPMC process machine. In the meantime as an active mentor of the podling I intend to continue along my current path. I will, of course, respect the results of the IPMC vote, although it's a little hard to roll back to July 20th when I sent the message below.
Ross
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: John D. Ament<ma...@apache.org>
Sent: 8/9/2015 4:37 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>; dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<ma...@ripple.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Ross,
It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A
new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
2. This vote was never summarized.
If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where
I can find the email with the relevant information.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:44 PM Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> The Ripple project has voted on a release but we are short one IPMC vote.
> Can someone on the IPMC please review the release package and vote (see
> details below).
>
> Thanks
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Barham [mailto:Tim.Barham@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 11:53 PM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
>
> 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
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f1drv.ms%2f1H9yF5h.&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7cdc6a7ab89a8548ad86af08d2a1137f6b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=31h50qoJiEfW3KFus9TWDRWnDCCb0iGkmRzdmGmodr0%3d 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
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fincubator.apache.org%2fguides%2freleasemanagement.html%23check-list.&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7cdc6a7ab89a8548ad86af08d2a1137f6b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=hUklLVVtW5r3F77wo%2fL%2b6YEPkE9jWuLVvabDtDBCMgY%3d
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
RE: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE:
[RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Your observations are correct. Though I disagree with the interpretation of policy (this was the topic of a recent thread on the general list).
We have 4 IPMC votes. The summary is on the PPMC list where the project is managed.
Feel free to cast a -1 and invoke the IPMC process machine. In the meantime as an active mentor of the podling I intend to continue along my current path. I will, of course, respect the results of the IPMC vote, although it's a little hard to roll back to July 20th when I sent the message below.
Ross
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: John D. Ament<ma...@apache.org>
Sent: 8/9/2015 4:37 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>; dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org<ma...@ripple.incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] IPMC vote needed for Ripple release 0.9.30 (was RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30)
Ross,
It seems like there are multiple issues with this vote thread.
1. It looks like it was started on the dev list, but then sent to general
asking for a 3rd IPMC vote. This is not generally how things are done. A
new vote thread should be started to cover the vote on the general list.
The IPMC votes from dev@ would carry over.
2. This vote was never summarized.
If either of these statements is incorrect, please include a link to where
I can find the email with the relevant information.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:44 PM Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> The Ripple project has voted on a release but we are short one IPMC vote.
> Can someone on the IPMC please review the release package and vote (see
> details below).
>
> Thanks
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Barham [mailto:Tim.Barham@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 11:53 PM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.30
>
> 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
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f1drv.ms%2f1H9yF5h.&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7cdc6a7ab89a8548ad86af08d2a1137f6b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=31h50qoJiEfW3KFus9TWDRWnDCCb0iGkmRzdmGmodr0%3d 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
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fincubator.apache.org%2fguides%2freleasemanagement.html%23check-list.&data=01%7c01%7cross.gardler%40microsoft.com%7cdc6a7ab89a8548ad86af08d2a1137f6b%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=hUklLVVtW5r3F77wo%2fL%2b6YEPkE9jWuLVvabDtDBCMgY%3d
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>