You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> on 2014/12/05 11:55:48 UTC
[VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
I suggest that at any point in the release process a vote should be carried over if the person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry over.
+1
Harbs
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Here is a link to the modified wiki.[1] I think the changes are pretty minor… I removed mention of carried votes from the voting timeframe section, and clarified the wording in the “Product Release” section.
Harbs
[1]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines
[RESULT][VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
This vote passed with 6 +1 binding votes and one -1 binding votes.
This vote is somewhat moot in light of the recent discussions and clarifications of what different people mean by “carried votes”, but I will edit the guidelines shortly to reflect what I believe was the spirit of the vote. If anyone has concerns with the wording, please raise them in another thread.
Thanks,
Harbs
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
+1 (Binding)
Redone for clarity in vote counting.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Kessler CTR Mark J [mailto:mark.kessler.ctr@usmc.mil]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 7:22 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
+1
I like the idea. Barring we do not allow new features to be added in between RC's.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 5:56 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
I suggest that at any point in the release process a vote should be carried over if the person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry over.
+1
Harbs
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
Valdemar,
Send an email to [1] to remove yourself from this list. There is a better description here of the lists and their subscriptions [2].
[1] dev-unsubscribe@flex.apache.org
[2] http://flex.apache.org/community-mailinglists.html
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Valdemar Lopes [mailto:valdemarlopes@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 7:35 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Please remove me from this list
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Valdemar Lopes <va...@gmail.com>.
Please remove me from this list
2014-12-05 12:21 GMT+00:00 Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>:
> +1
>
> I like the idea. Barring we do not allow new features to be added in
> between RC's.
>
> -Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 5:56 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
> process
>
> I suggest that at any point in the release process a vote should be
> carried over if the person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry
> over.
>
> +1
>
> Harbs
>
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding
On Dec 5, 2014 4:58 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (Binding)
> Frédéric THOMAS
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
+1 (Binding)
Frédéric THOMAS
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 05/12/14 12:29, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> As a side note: PMC members should really add " (binding)" to their
> votes. That will save the vote caller the trouble of having to look up
> each individual's status when calling the result.
I didn't know this and I'm on the PMC :-)
I've noted it on as this will help new PMC members
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines
Tom
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
As a side note: PMC members should really add " (binding)" to their
votes. That will save the vote caller the trouble of having to look up
each individual's status when calling the result.
Thanks,
EdB
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> I like the idea. Barring we do not allow new features to be added in between RC's.
>
> The 'less-RC' proposal is very explicit about this: no new features in
> the RCs, to be more specific: no new features in the release after the
> release branch has been cut.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
> I like the idea. Barring we do not allow new features to be added in between RC's.
The 'less-RC' proposal is very explicit about this: no new features in
the RCs, to be more specific: no new features in the release after the
release branch has been cut.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
+1
I like the idea. Barring we do not allow new features to be added in between RC's.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 5:56 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
I suggest that at any point in the release process a vote should be carried over if the person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry over.
+1
Harbs
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
+1
If I've checked that something is OK, I generally don't want to check it
again just because it was re-rolled to fix something I didn't notice the
first time.
Sometimes it is hard enough getting time to test one release, never mind
essentially the same one several times a week.
Tom
On 05/12/14 10:55, Harbs wrote:
> I suggest that at any point in the release process a vote should be carried over if the person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry over.
>
> +1
>
> Harbs
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 5, 2014 11:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > This is again a case of misleading characterization of the issue in
hand.
>
> Sorry I don't believe it is.
>
> The board requires oversight on releases and that means Majority Approval
(ie 3 binding +1 votes) the release only had 2 +1 binding votes. In this
case it could be called into question if there were 3 binding votes or not
if I carried over votes, so as RM I erred on the side of caution, again not
unreasonable when legal matters are concerned. IMO it certainly wan't worth
the time delay in involving legal (as the release has already been going on
for a month) when the solution (get an extra vote) was minimal effort.
>
> > We have already in the past, voted to allow 'carry over' of votes for
minor, non-code related changes.
>
> Yes but not changes like this to NOTICE files.
>
> > I know that nothing in the code changed, so I did not want to retest
the entire
> > package.
>
> So why not just vote +1? If you were confident there were no code
changes, I don't think anyone would of had any issues of you voting +1
without retesting as were only minor changes to the code (3rd party XML
file). And no one raised any objection to the 3rd +1 (which given the lack
of detail) probably didn't involve retesting.
>
> > All this current vote does is remove that loophole.
>
> Well it depends how it's implemented it could be taken to mean that I
only need to vote on one RC and then can request to carry over my vote for
every other RC with going through the release vetting process and the RM
has to accept it. I hope not but time will tell.
We can deal with that when such a situation arises. Let's move on, please.
Thanks,
Om
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> This is again a case of misleading characterization of the issue in hand.
Sorry I don't believe it is.
The board requires oversight on releases and that means Majority Approval (ie 3 binding +1 votes) the release only had 2 +1 binding votes. In this case it could be called into question if there were 3 binding votes or not if I carried over votes, so as RM I erred on the side of caution, again not unreasonable when legal matters are concerned. IMO it certainly wan't worth the time delay in involving legal (as the release has already been going on for a month) when the solution (get an extra vote) was minimal effort.
> We have already in the past, voted to allow 'carry over' of votes for minor, non-code related changes.
Yes but not changes like this to NOTICE files.
> I know that nothing in the code changed, so I did not want to retest the entire
> package.
So why not just vote +1? If you were confident there were no code changes, I don't think anyone would of had any issues of you voting +1 without retesting as were only minor changes to the code (3rd party XML file). And no one raised any objection to the 3rd +1 (which given the lack of detail) probably didn't involve retesting.
> All this current vote does is remove that loophole.
Well it depends how it's implemented it could be taken to mean that I only need to vote on one RC and then can request to carry over my vote for every other RC with going through the release vetting process and the RM has to accept it. I hope not but time will tell.
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Chris Martin <ch...@outlook.com>.
> In fact, I did take the time to properly examine the artifacts and vote on
> that RC. One of the reasons I did that was to make it more likely that
> folks like Om who may not have the time to re-examine the artifacts would
> feel more comfortable allowing a carryover of their vote. The only two
> changes in this RC were both text-based, a corrected URL in the NOTICE and
> an unrelated change to an XML config file. Everyone had the opportunity
> to review the commit that changed the NOTICE, and if Justin and I both
> claim the corrected NOTICE is in the artifacts, I and most others thought
> that would be sufficient oversight. Alex, you bring up a good point here and I too remember that was the case in the thread as I read both you and Justin qualified the NOTICE was okay. I feel more comfortable with not having the specific language about PMC votes not able to carry over as described in my suggested edit to the less-RC [1] page. Timing of when the "carry over" request was made is important to note as that bring better context to the situation. I do feel that we as a group will do our best to make sure legal stuff does not get missed, and we should be able to rely on the quality of work others provide to the group. I agree and would like to give our community the ability to carry over votes.
However, after writing all of that, I think it'd be good to maintain a clear image to those outside the Apache Flex community that they can be assured that even in a secondary RC, key members of the community will verify that everything is okay. And that clarity can come from either the consistency of our actions or wording in process pages.
I am still on the fence regarding wording for the change. At this time i'll vote:
+0 binding
As I agree with the spirit of the change and I am very confident that the team will figure out the detail of the language or even if any would be required.
[1] http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Allow-RC-votes-to-carry-over-at-any-point-in-the-release-process-td43079.html#a43109
> From: aharui@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:54:21 +0000
>
>
>
> On 12/5/14, 11:22 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/05/2014 07:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >>
> >>> Being the RM and making a release has a legal responsibility. I don't
> >>> think we should be forcing the RM to be doing anything that has
> >>>potential
> >>> legal issues. The incident that this VOTE has arisen from was about
> >>> changing NOTICE and then making a release without the required PMC
> >>> oversight and that certainly fits into this (slightly scary) category.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Although I don't have a vote here, as an ASF member I have to agree with
> >> Justin's assessment here.
> >>
> >> Given that a release only requires 3 +1 votes, it shouldn't be a
> >>hardship
> >> to vote again. Having a vote "carry over" only seems to make sense if,
> >> indeed, nothing changed. If something changes, it's reasonable to ask
> >> people to have a look before they vote.
> >
> >
> >This is again a case of misleading characterization of the issue in hand.
>
> In fact, I did take the time to properly examine the artifacts and vote on
> that RC. One of the reasons I did that was to make it more likely that
> folks like Om who may not have the time to re-examine the artifacts would
> feel more comfortable allowing a carryover of their vote. The only two
> changes in this RC were both text-based, a corrected URL in the NOTICE and
> an unrelated change to an XML config file. Everyone had the opportunity
> to review the commit that changed the NOTICE, and if Justin and I both
> claim the corrected NOTICE is in the artifacts, I and most others thought
> that would be sufficient oversight.
>
> -Alex
>
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Everyone had the opportunity to review the commit that changed the NOTICE,
The error was in the previous 2 RCs and also in the 1.1 release [1] which also went though a couple of RCs. IMO that points to that we need more PMC members checking releases. Which I guess ties into the thread on the low number of PMC members voting.
> and if Justin and I both claim the corrected NOTICE is in the artifacts, I and most others thought
> that would be sufficient oversight.
Oversight requires a minimum of 3 PMC members not 2.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://github.com/apache/flex-utilities/blob/apache-flex-tour-de-flex-component-explorer-1.1/TourDeFlex/NOTICE
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/5/14, 11:22 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2014 07:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>
>>> Being the RM and making a release has a legal responsibility. I don't
>>> think we should be forcing the RM to be doing anything that has
>>>potential
>>> legal issues. The incident that this VOTE has arisen from was about
>>> changing NOTICE and then making a release without the required PMC
>>> oversight and that certainly fits into this (slightly scary) category.
>>>
>>
>> Although I don't have a vote here, as an ASF member I have to agree with
>> Justin's assessment here.
>>
>> Given that a release only requires 3 +1 votes, it shouldn't be a
>>hardship
>> to vote again. Having a vote "carry over" only seems to make sense if,
>> indeed, nothing changed. If something changes, it's reasonable to ask
>> people to have a look before they vote.
>
>
>This is again a case of misleading characterization of the issue in hand.
In fact, I did take the time to properly examine the artifacts and vote on
that RC. One of the reasons I did that was to make it more likely that
folks like Om who may not have the time to re-examine the artifacts would
feel more comfortable allowing a carryover of their vote. The only two
changes in this RC were both text-based, a corrected URL in the NOTICE and
an unrelated change to an XML config file. Everyone had the opportunity
to review the commit that changed the NOTICE, and if Justin and I both
claim the corrected NOTICE is in the artifacts, I and most others thought
that would be sufficient oversight.
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/05/2014 07:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
>> Being the RM and making a release has a legal responsibility. I don't
>> think we should be forcing the RM to be doing anything that has potential
>> legal issues. The incident that this VOTE has arisen from was about
>> changing NOTICE and then making a release without the required PMC
>> oversight and that certainly fits into this (slightly scary) category.
>>
>
> Although I don't have a vote here, as an ASF member I have to agree with
> Justin's assessment here.
>
> Given that a release only requires 3 +1 votes, it shouldn't be a hardship
> to vote again. Having a vote "carry over" only seems to make sense if,
> indeed, nothing changed. If something changes, it's reasonable to ask
> people to have a look before they vote.
This is again a case of misleading characterization of the issue in hand.
We have already in the past, voted to allow 'carry over' of votes for
minor, non-code related changes.
Justin, when he was RM refused to carry over votes in spite of
a.) making a non-code related change
b.) the voters explicitly asking him to carry over their votes (One of them
was me. Properly testing that artifact would take hours. I know that
nothing in the code changed, so I did not want to retest the entire
package. Hence my request to carry over the previous vote)
The RM refused to carry over the votes by raising a technical loophole that
he did not mention that votes were carried over when he called the vote for
that RC. He could have simply started a new RC email voting thread, but he
refused to do that too.
All this current vote does is remove that loophole.
Nothing much to discuss here, we are trying to take a vote so that we don't
needlessly spend time discussing this loophole that only one person wants
to invoke. We want to move on.
Thanks,
Om
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 12/05/2014 07:59 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Being the RM and making a release has a legal responsibility. I don't think we should be forcing the RM to be doing anything that has potential legal issues. The incident that this VOTE has arisen from was about changing NOTICE and then making a release without the required PMC oversight and that certainly fits into this (slightly scary) category.
Although I don't have a vote here, as an ASF member I have to agree with
Justin's assessment here.
Given that a release only requires 3 +1 votes, it shouldn't be a
hardship to vote again. Having a vote "carry over" only seems to make
sense if, indeed, nothing changed. If something changes, it's reasonable
to ask people to have a look before they vote.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, I think having the proposed language would help me cast a vote. I
feel Justin brings up a good thought. Maybe we'd say that PMC votes cannot
carry over their votes since there was a severe issue with the previous RC?
Here's a suggested change block to the 'less-RC' [1] wiki page in the "RC
Cycle" section (changes in bold):
"At this stage only issues with significant negative impact, such as
problems with signatures, previously undiscovered licensing error, a
security issue, or a bug that will hit a lot of users should cause the RM
to discard the RC. *Because of the severity of the issue, PMC votes cannot
be carried over to the new RC. Other votes can be carried over at the
request of the votee. Other issues* should have been brought up during the
testing phase, and any changes/fixes related to those issues should go into
develop branch for the next release."
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/The+%27less-RC%27+process
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Kessler CTR Mark J <
mark.kessler.ctr@usmc.mil> wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback. Always good to get an community opinion with
> an outside perspective.
>
> -Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Nicholson [mailto:ascensionsystems@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:25 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the
> release process
>
> I just have to say as a new member here looking to possibly get involved,
> that all of this back and forth arguing over the release process and all
> the terror of the legality of changing things really makes for a terrible
> first impression. I'm pretty discouraged about any participation. Between
> the bickering, nobody noticed a frustrated subscriber demanding to be taken
> off the dev list. (spare one person helping him do so)
>
> So yeah, basically here is my first impression of being involved in flex.
> Quite a few people really dislike the release manager, people are terrified
> of the legal implications of mistakes (which makes me terrified to touch
> and use the source) and many of the leads here seem to double as adobe
> employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily controlled
> and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests.
>
> So there's my first impression. I'm not claiming these are facts, they're
> an impression. Just thought you guys would care for the insight into how
> your community is developing around this project and why at least 2 people
> are looking at running away from the mailing list today.
>
RE: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release
process
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
Thank you for your feedback. Always good to get an community opinion with an outside perspective.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Nicholson [mailto:ascensionsystems@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:25 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
I just have to say as a new member here looking to possibly get involved,
that all of this back and forth arguing over the release process and all
the terror of the legality of changing things really makes for a terrible
first impression. I'm pretty discouraged about any participation. Between
the bickering, nobody noticed a frustrated subscriber demanding to be taken
off the dev list. (spare one person helping him do so)
So yeah, basically here is my first impression of being involved in flex.
Quite a few people really dislike the release manager, people are terrified
of the legal implications of mistakes (which makes me terrified to touch
and use the source) and many of the leads here seem to double as adobe
employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily controlled
and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests.
So there's my first impression. I'm not claiming these are facts, they're
an impression. Just thought you guys would care for the insight into how
your community is developing around this project and why at least 2 people
are looking at running away from the mailing list today.
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Jesse Nicholson <as...@gmail.com>.
I'll stop emailing on this thread, my apologize to people for the unrelated
messages that have come through.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Jesse Nicholson <ascensionsystems@gmail.com
> wrote:
> My intention wasn't to hurt anyone. As a grown up, I'm open to
> conversations where subject matter isn't all sunshine and lolipops without
> taking it personally. :) I was just giving my first impressions, which I
> think were legitimate since 90% of the messages coming in so far was
> arguing over the release process and the release manager heralding the end
> of the universe if we all carry on against his advice.
>
> Anyway yes I do have genuine concerns about corporate independence. Your
> profile says that you work for Adobe, right? I don't see how that in itself
> doesn't wrap up "corporate independence" neatly and throw it out the window
> and down the mountain side, with respect. The only target (until a mature
> flex-js) is a closed source platform owned by your employer. But even then,
> the only complete toolset for authoring against this framework is owned and
> marketed as a commercial product by your employer. The website addresses
> this by kindly suggesting to command line everything. Well, we all know
> that people who used flex before are stuck with Adobe Flex IDE dependent
> project files, so yeah. Source code headers don't make copyright claims but
> rather express that the software is licensed to the apache software
> foundation with permission to extend that license (apache license) to end
> users. So yes sir, I have genuine, real questions about how on earth apache
> could possibly be running this project independent of adobe systems
> incorporated given everything I've mentioned above.
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Nicholson
>> <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...many of the leads here seem to double as adobe
>> > employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily
>> controlled
>> > and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests....
>>
>> I suppose you did not realize how that kind of statement is received
>> by people who spend lots of energy to run this foundation in a way
>> that keeps our projects independent from corporate influences, as well
>> as by people who take great care of contributing to these projects in
>> a way that implements this independence.
>>
>> As someone who's active on all sides of this, I am doubly hurt ;-)
>>
>> But of course if you have actual concerns about corporate
>> independence, feel free to report them to this PMC or to a trusted
>> Apache Foundation Member or Director.
>>
>> Anyway...welcome! And I'd recommend that you stay around for a bit
>> longer. IMO this project is currently in a crisis but there's positive
>> signs in the last few days that the atmosphere should get much better
>> soon!
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jesse Nicholson
>
--
Jesse Nicholson
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Jesse Nicholson <as...@gmail.com>.
My intention wasn't to hurt anyone. As a grown up, I'm open to
conversations where subject matter isn't all sunshine and lolipops without
taking it personally. :) I was just giving my first impressions, which I
think were legitimate since 90% of the messages coming in so far was
arguing over the release process and the release manager heralding the end
of the universe if we all carry on against his advice.
Anyway yes I do have genuine concerns about corporate independence. Your
profile says that you work for Adobe, right? I don't see how that in itself
doesn't wrap up "corporate independence" neatly and throw it out the window
and down the mountain side, with respect. The only target (until a mature
flex-js) is a closed source platform owned by your employer. But even then,
the only complete toolset for authoring against this framework is owned and
marketed as a commercial product by your employer. The website addresses
this by kindly suggesting to command line everything. Well, we all know
that people who used flex before are stuck with Adobe Flex IDE dependent
project files, so yeah. Source code headers don't make copyright claims but
rather express that the software is licensed to the apache software
foundation with permission to extend that license (apache license) to end
users. So yes sir, I have genuine, real questions about how on earth apache
could possibly be running this project independent of adobe systems
incorporated given everything I've mentioned above.
Thanks. :)
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Nicholson
> <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...many of the leads here seem to double as adobe
> > employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily
> controlled
> > and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests....
>
> I suppose you did not realize how that kind of statement is received
> by people who spend lots of energy to run this foundation in a way
> that keeps our projects independent from corporate influences, as well
> as by people who take great care of contributing to these projects in
> a way that implements this independence.
>
> As someone who's active on all sides of this, I am doubly hurt ;-)
>
> But of course if you have actual concerns about corporate
> independence, feel free to report them to this PMC or to a trusted
> Apache Foundation Member or Director.
>
> Anyway...welcome! And I'd recommend that you stay around for a bit
> longer. IMO this project is currently in a crisis but there's positive
> signs in the last few days that the atmosphere should get much better
> soon!
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Jesse Nicholson
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Nicholson
<as...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...many of the leads here seem to double as adobe
> employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily controlled
> and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests....
I suppose you did not realize how that kind of statement is received
by people who spend lots of energy to run this foundation in a way
that keeps our projects independent from corporate influences, as well
as by people who take great care of contributing to these projects in
a way that implements this independence.
As someone who's active on all sides of this, I am doubly hurt ;-)
But of course if you have actual concerns about corporate
independence, feel free to report them to this PMC or to a trusted
Apache Foundation Member or Director.
Anyway...welcome! And I'd recommend that you stay around for a bit
longer. IMO this project is currently in a crisis but there's positive
signs in the last few days that the atmosphere should get much better
soon!
-Bertrand
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Jesse Nicholson <as...@gmail.com>.
I just have to say as a new member here looking to possibly get involved,
that all of this back and forth arguing over the release process and all
the terror of the legality of changing things really makes for a terrible
first impression. I'm pretty discouraged about any participation. Between
the bickering, nobody noticed a frustrated subscriber demanding to be taken
off the dev list. (spare one person helping him do so)
So yeah, basically here is my first impression of being involved in flex.
Quite a few people really dislike the release manager, people are terrified
of the legal implications of mistakes (which makes me terrified to touch
and use the source) and many of the leads here seem to double as adobe
employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily controlled
and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests.
So there's my first impression. I'm not claiming these are facts, they're
an impression. Just thought you guys would care for the insight into how
your community is developing around this project and why at least 2 people
are looking at running away from the mailing list today.
On 5 Dec 2014 08:09, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> > ... without much discussion ...
>
> LOL
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
> ... without much discussion ...
LOL
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
-1 (binding)
To change the guidelines it would be better to propose a vote with actual word changes to the guidelines, but that's not why I'm voting -1.
Being the RM and making a release has a legal responsibility. I don't think we should be forcing the RM to be doing anything that has potential legal issues. The incident that this VOTE has arisen from was about changing NOTICE and then making a release without the required PMC oversight and that certainly fits into this (slightly scary) category.
This vote as been hastily called and without much discussion and thus possibly without realising it's full implications. While only voting once for several release candidates certainly has an attraction in terms of individual effort, it possibly* ignores the PMCs legal responsibility. I would suggest that people voting +1 think about the above and reconsider their vote.
Thanks,
Justin
* You would need to involve legal-dicuss to know for sure, I'm not a lawyer, but know enough to feel concerned about this.
Re: [VOTE] Allow RC votes to carry over at any point in the release process
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
+1 (binding)
The RM should treat an explicit statement indicating the wish to carry
over a vote the same as voting again.
EdB
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest that at any point in the release process a vote should be carried over if the person voting indicates they wish the vote should carry over.
>
> +1
>
> Harbs
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl