You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@corinthia.apache.org by jan i <ja...@apache.org> on 2015/08/23 10:10:14 UTC
[RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Hi
I am pleased to announce that we can continue with our release. It has been
a long
journey so far and the next step is to have IPMC vote for the release.
The vote passed with:
8 +1 (include 1 Mentor vote)
0 +0 (Dennis gave this in the PRE-VOTE, but wrote "I do not give permission
for this to be applied automatically to a genuine [VOTE]" so it is not
counted.
0 -1
4 PPMC abstained from voting (will be discussed later on private).
Daniel Gruno and Myself have binding IPMC votes, which I will transfer.
rgds
jan i.
On 20 August 2015 at 21:27, Dorte Fjalland <do...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards
> Dorte
> El 20/8/2015 17:15, "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > +1
> > louis
> >
> > PS thanks for the reminder.
> >
> >
> > > On 18 Aug 15, at 14:06, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > We have found some errors during the PRE-VOTE phase, which made that
> > period
> > > very
> > > valuable instead of jumping direct to a VOTE.
> > >
> > > This is the call for the official VOTE for
> > incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/corinthia/incubator-corinthia_release_0.1.zip
> > >
> > > and the signature:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/corinthia/incubator-corinthia_release_0.1.zip.asc
> > >
> > > The vote we will follow the standard guidelines:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
> approval
> > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> --
> > i.e.,
> > > at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> there
> > > must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed."
> > >
> > > VOTE runs until Monday 23th August, where the IPMC VOTE will start.
> > >
> > > I invite our mentors to vote, since their vote count as IPMC.
> > >
> > > All IPMC who vote, please write if you do NOT want your vote to be
> > > transferred to the IPMC vote.
> > >
> > > rgds
> > > jan i
> > >
> > > Vote:
> > > [ ] +1, I agree in releasing the artifacts
> > > [ ] +0, I do not care if we release the artifacts
> > > [ ] -1, I do not want the artifacts to be release because ....
> >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 23 August 2015 at 12:05, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> jan i wrote:
>
>> 4 PPMC abstained from voting (will be discussed later on private).
>>
>
> I'm sorry I didn't complete my analysis in time. All checks I did were OK,
> so I'm stating now my
> +0 abstain
> (which would be a +1 if I had had time to go through all checks!). I would
> never give a +1 without having completed a proper review.
>
> I had delayed my vote until today since deadline to me is "the last day
> when someone can vote" (the accident of writing "Monday 23 August" made it
> even less clear), so I assumed I could cast my +0 (or hopefully +1 if I had
> finished all checks!) today end of the day.
>
Well i did also write that I would start the IPMC vote 23th august.
>
> I'm very pleased with the results anyway. Do not modify the tally based on
> the above, I am simply justifying why I was waiting until today.
>
which correspond with what I thought and is no big problem.
rgds
jan i.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
jan i wrote:
> 4 PPMC abstained from voting (will be discussed later on private).
I'm sorry I didn't complete my analysis in time. All checks I did were
OK, so I'm stating now my
+0 abstain
(which would be a +1 if I had had time to go through all checks!). I
would never give a +1 without having completed a proper review.
I had delayed my vote until today since deadline to me is "the last day
when someone can vote" (the accident of writing "Monday 23 August" made
it even less clear), so I assumed I could cast my +0 (or hopefully +1 if
I had finished all checks!) today end of the day.
I'm very pleased with the results anyway. Do not modify the tally based
on the above, I am simply justifying why I was waiting until today.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Posted by Ian C <ia...@amham.net>.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2015, at 11:51 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Abstentions are not to be discussed. Abstentions are abstentions. And why discuss them in private? The [VOTE] was done here. There is no private@ business called for. The only ballot that requires an explanation is a -1.
>
> I was going to keep the discussion to private@, but since you prefer to have it in public, I’ll continue it here.
>
> We, as a team of individuals voluntarily coming together to work on a project, can decide what we want to discuss. Anyone can raise a topic on a mailing list. Whether or not you believe a topic is appropriate is not the determining factor of whether it should be discussed; others may consider it important.
>
> While votes may not be officially required from all PPMC members, I believe that anyone who genuinely cares about a project and (barring absence or illness) is able to vote on such an important matter as a first release should do so - particularly when they have raised issues during the pre-vote period. I assumed given your interest in the points you raised in pre-vote, that you had enough interest in the outcome to make an actual vote.
>
>> Furthermore, I take personal exception to my abstention in the [PRE-VOTE] being carried forward, effectively, against my wishes, and reported anyhow when it is not applicable to this [VOTE]. That is unacceptable. Please do not do that again.
>
> Jan very explicitly stated that your abstention (which you made on the public list) was *not* being carried forward, along with an explanation of the reason for this. Given that Jan had mentioned in the announcement that any votes expressed in the pre-vote period would be carried forward unless otherwise stated, I think this explanation was warranted.
>
> Again this is another really pointless procedural issue, which I’m sick of discussing.
>
> I’ve spent the whole weekend working on an implementation Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm to assist with the static verification of transformations between different documents. Every time I come onto the list I hope to see something about development and all I find is more arguing about procedures. I think this is actively harmful to the project and we should be focusing on getting stuff done, not wasting our time on trivia.
Hear! Hear! ...
>
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> pmkelly@apache.org
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
--
Cheers,
Ian C
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Posted by Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org>.
> On 23 Aug 2015, at 11:51 pm, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Abstentions are not to be discussed. Abstentions are abstentions. And why discuss them in private? The [VOTE] was done here. There is no private@ business called for. The only ballot that requires an explanation is a -1.
I was going to keep the discussion to private@, but since you prefer to have it in public, I’ll continue it here.
We, as a team of individuals voluntarily coming together to work on a project, can decide what we want to discuss. Anyone can raise a topic on a mailing list. Whether or not you believe a topic is appropriate is not the determining factor of whether it should be discussed; others may consider it important.
While votes may not be officially required from all PPMC members, I believe that anyone who genuinely cares about a project and (barring absence or illness) is able to vote on such an important matter as a first release should do so - particularly when they have raised issues during the pre-vote period. I assumed given your interest in the points you raised in pre-vote, that you had enough interest in the outcome to make an actual vote.
> Furthermore, I take personal exception to my abstention in the [PRE-VOTE] being carried forward, effectively, against my wishes, and reported anyhow when it is not applicable to this [VOTE]. That is unacceptable. Please do not do that again.
Jan very explicitly stated that your abstention (which you made on the public list) was *not* being carried forward, along with an explanation of the reason for this. Given that Jan had mentioned in the announcement that any votes expressed in the pre-vote period would be carried forward unless otherwise stated, I think this explanation was warranted.
Again this is another really pointless procedural issue, which I’m sick of discussing.
I’ve spent the whole weekend working on an implementation Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm to assist with the static verification of transformations between different documents. Every time I come onto the list I hope to see something about development and all I find is more arguing about procedures. I think this is actively harmful to the project and we should be focusing on getting stuff done, not wasting our time on trivia.
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Sunday, August 23, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> Abstentions are not to be discussed. Abstentions are abstentions. And
> why discuss them in private? The [VOTE] was done here. There is no
> private@ business called for. The only ballot that requires an
> explanation is a -1.
Private is used when people are involved, you know very well that there is
a discussion about a person ongoing, which should not be done in public.
>
> Furthermore, I take personal exception to my abstention in the [PRE-VOTE]
> being carried forward, effectively, against my wishes, and reported anyhow
> when it is not applicable to this [VOTE]. That is unacceptable. Please
> do not do that again.
> I did NOT carry your vote forward, please look I did not write 1 0. I
quoted a public email, which I think is legal, to explain why I did not
carry it forward.
Quoting public email is something we all do from time to time, it is pure
nonsence to ask me
not to do that. I even took care to copy/paste your exact wording.
rgds
jan i.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org <javascript:;>]
> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 01:10
> To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org <javascript:;>
> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
>
> Hi
>
> I am pleased to announce that we can continue with our release. It has been
> a long
> journey so far and the next step is to have IPMC vote for the release.
>
> The vote passed with:
> 8 +1 (include 1 Mentor vote)
> 0 +0 (Dennis gave this in the PRE-VOTE, but wrote "I do not give permission
> for this to be applied automatically to a genuine [VOTE]" so it is not
> counted.
> 0 -1
>
> 4 PPMC abstained from voting (will be discussed later on private).
>
> Daniel Gruno and Myself have binding IPMC votes, which I will transfer.
>
> rgds
> jan i.
>
>
> On 20 August 2015 at 21:27, Dorte Fjalland <dortecasacondor@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Regards
> > Dorte
> > El 20/8/2015 17:15, "Louis Suárez-Potts" <luispo@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> escribió:
> >
> > > +1
> > > louis
> > >
> > > PS thanks for the reminder.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 18 Aug 15, at 14:06, jan i <jani@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > We have found some errors during the PRE-VOTE phase, which made that
> > > period
> > > > very
> > > > valuable instead of jumping direct to a VOTE.
> > > >
> > > > This is the call for the official VOTE for
> > > incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/corinthia/incubator-corinthia_release_0.1.zip
> > > >
> > > > and the signature:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/corinthia/incubator-corinthia_release_0.1.zip.asc
> > > >
> > > > The vote we will follow the standard guidelines:
> > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > > > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
> > approval
> > > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> --
> > > i.e.,
> > > > at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> > there
> > > > must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be
> vetoed."
> > > >
> > > > VOTE runs until Monday 23th August, where the IPMC VOTE will start.
> > > >
> > > > I invite our mentors to vote, since their vote count as IPMC.
> > > >
> > > > All IPMC who vote, please write if you do NOT want your vote to be
> > > > transferred to the IPMC vote.
> > > >
> > > > rgds
> > > > jan i
> > > >
> > > > Vote:
> > > > [ ] +1, I agree in releasing the artifacts
> > > > [ ] +0, I do not care if we release the artifacts
> > > > [ ] -1, I do not want the artifacts to be release because ....
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
RE: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Abstentions are not to be discussed. Abstentions are abstentions. And why discuss them in private? The [VOTE] was done here. There is no private@ business called for. The only ballot that requires an explanation is a -1.
Furthermore, I take personal exception to my abstention in the [PRE-VOTE] being carried forward, effectively, against my wishes, and reported anyhow when it is not applicable to this [VOTE]. That is unacceptable. Please do not do that again.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 01:10
To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
Hi
I am pleased to announce that we can continue with our release. It has been
a long
journey so far and the next step is to have IPMC vote for the release.
The vote passed with:
8 +1 (include 1 Mentor vote)
0 +0 (Dennis gave this in the PRE-VOTE, but wrote "I do not give permission
for this to be applied automatically to a genuine [VOTE]" so it is not
counted.
0 -1
4 PPMC abstained from voting (will be discussed later on private).
Daniel Gruno and Myself have binding IPMC votes, which I will transfer.
rgds
jan i.
On 20 August 2015 at 21:27, Dorte Fjalland <do...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards
> Dorte
> El 20/8/2015 17:15, "Louis Suárez-Potts" <lu...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > +1
> > louis
> >
> > PS thanks for the reminder.
> >
> >
> > > On 18 Aug 15, at 14:06, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > We have found some errors during the PRE-VOTE phase, which made that
> > period
> > > very
> > > valuable instead of jumping direct to a VOTE.
> > >
> > > This is the call for the official VOTE for
> > incubator_corinthia_release_0.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/corinthia/incubator-corinthia_release_0.1.zip
> > >
> > > and the signature:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/corinthia/incubator-corinthia_release_0.1.zip.asc
> > >
> > > The vote we will follow the standard guidelines:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > > "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
> approval
> > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> --
> > i.e.,
> > > at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and
> there
> > > must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be vetoed."
> > >
> > > VOTE runs until Monday 23th August, where the IPMC VOTE will start.
> > >
> > > I invite our mentors to vote, since their vote count as IPMC.
> > >
> > > All IPMC who vote, please write if you do NOT want your vote to be
> > > transferred to the IPMC vote.
> > >
> > > rgds
> > > jan i
> > >
> > > Vote:
> > > [ ] +1, I agree in releasing the artifacts
> > > [ ] +0, I do not care if we release the artifacts
> > > [ ] -1, I do not want the artifacts to be release because ....
> >
> >
>