Re: fairy nuff

[Tony Sanders <sa...@bsdi.com>]

Rob Hartill writes:
> Nobody supported my suggestion to move 1.0 online today. So it's
> business as usual.
...
> Wake me up when you decide to do something,

I think the Apache Group should change the model for release
management.  The group consensus thing just isn't very efficient.

There should be two or three of the most active people responsible
for the release.  Those people should take input from the
group and then make the call on when and what to release.

For major issues, someone could do a call for votes -- but any call
for votes should have an explicit expiration date and time.

Also, there should be an Apache Release Status web page that tells the
group the current status, issues, and what they need to be working on.

Re: fairy nuff

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>]

On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Tony Sanders wrote:
> Rob Hartill writes:
> > Nobody supported my suggestion to move 1.0 online today. So it's
> > business as usual.
> ...
> > Wake me up when you decide to do something,
> 
> I think the Apache Group should change the model for release
> management.  The group consensus thing just isn't very efficient.

I have no problem seeing a Release Manager, a czaristic entity who cares for
and feeds the web site, manages when public announcements are made, etc.  Any
volunteers?  This does not have to be the patch vote manager or the release
builder.  This person would be the last word in small tweaks (like 
README enhanceents). 

I'll volunteer if no one else wants it.

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/