Re: [] Release jena-larq 1.0.0-incubating (RC-1)

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

On 27/03/12 17:07, Paolo Castagna wrote:
> Robert Vesse wrote:
>> I would release now as we have several more rounds of emails and votes to get through before Jena actually gets to graduate, namely:
>>
>> - Proposed Resolution Discussion on general@i.a.o
>> - Resolution vote on general@i.a.o
>> - Board Meeting (which is third monday of month so if we time everything nicely we may get graduation approved by end of April)
>
> Hi Rob
>
> We currently have two +1 from committers, vote has closed.
> I think it is possible to run the [VOTE] for longer an wait to
> see if another vote comes (if it is necessary) before sending
> the [VOTE] on general@i.a.o. But, I am not sure about this.
>
> I assumed my [VOTE] was implicit, but I guess it is a wrong
> assumption, so I explicitly voted now (but after the deadline).
> Is such vote valid?

Two +1's so far.

Is this vote really closed?  I don't see a CLOSED message.  The deadline 
is really just the earliest time when you can declare a RESULT and close 
it with a positive outcome because you have then timed out on any -1's. 
  Voting after the named deadline is all too common.

What do you want to do?  Having said it's closed in this message, 
without a message tagged as such, leaves it in an uncertain state.  Time 
to collapse that wave function.

	Andy

>
> Will the [VOTE] for LARQ be the last [VOTE] for a release of a
> module before sending the [VOTE] for graduation or we need/want
> to release SDB as well before that?
>
> Paolo

Re: [] Release jena-larq 1.0.0-incubating (RC-1)

[Paolo Castagna <ca...@googlemail.com>]

Benson Margulies wrote:
> Here's another +1.

Thank you Benson.

Next step is to call a [VOTE] on general@i.a.o. I'll do that.

Paolo

> 
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/03/12 17:07, Paolo Castagna wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Vesse wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would release now as we have several more rounds of emails and votes
>>>> to get through before Jena actually gets to graduate, namely:
>>>>
>>>> - Proposed Resolution Discussion on general@i.a.o
>>>> - Resolution vote on general@i.a.o
>>>> - Board Meeting (which is third monday of month so if we time everything
>>>> nicely we may get graduation approved by end of April)
>>>>
>>> Hi Rob
>>>
>>> We currently have two +1 from committers, vote has closed.
>>> I think it is possible to run the [VOTE] for longer an wait to
>>> see if another vote comes (if it is necessary) before sending
>>> the [VOTE] on general@i.a.o. But, I am not sure about this.
>>>
>>> I assumed my [VOTE] was implicit, but I guess it is a wrong
>>> assumption, so I explicitly voted now (but after the deadline).
>>> Is such vote valid?
>>>
>> Two +1's so far.
>>
>> Is this vote really closed?  I don't see a CLOSED message.  The deadline
>> is really just the earliest time when you can declare a RESULT and close it
>> with a positive outcome because you have then timed out on any -1's.
>>  Voting after the named deadline is all too common.
>>
>> What do you want to do?  Having said it's closed in this message, without
>> a message tagged as such, leaves it in an uncertain state.  Time to
>> collapse that wave function.
>>
>>        Andy
>>
>>
>>> Will the [VOTE] for LARQ be the last [VOTE] for a release of a
>>> module before sending the [VOTE] for graduation or we need/want
>>> to release SDB as well before that?
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>>
> 

Re: [] Release jena-larq 1.0.0-incubating (RC-1)

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

Here's another +1.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 27/03/12 17:07, Paolo Castagna wrote:
>
>> Robert Vesse wrote:
>>
>>> I would release now as we have several more rounds of emails and votes
>>> to get through before Jena actually gets to graduate, namely:
>>>
>>> - Proposed Resolution Discussion on general@i.a.o
>>> - Resolution vote on general@i.a.o
>>> - Board Meeting (which is third monday of month so if we time everything
>>> nicely we may get graduation approved by end of April)
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rob
>>
>> We currently have two +1 from committers, vote has closed.
>> I think it is possible to run the [VOTE] for longer an wait to
>> see if another vote comes (if it is necessary) before sending
>> the [VOTE] on general@i.a.o. But, I am not sure about this.
>>
>> I assumed my [VOTE] was implicit, but I guess it is a wrong
>> assumption, so I explicitly voted now (but after the deadline).
>> Is such vote valid?
>>
>
> Two +1's so far.
>
> Is this vote really closed?  I don't see a CLOSED message.  The deadline
> is really just the earliest time when you can declare a RESULT and close it
> with a positive outcome because you have then timed out on any -1's.
>  Voting after the named deadline is all too common.
>
> What do you want to do?  Having said it's closed in this message, without
> a message tagged as such, leaves it in an uncertain state.  Time to
> collapse that wave function.
>
>        Andy
>
>
>> Will the [VOTE] for LARQ be the last [VOTE] for a release of a
>> module before sending the [VOTE] for graduation or we need/want
>> to release SDB as well before that?
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>