Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On May 8, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Ivan wrote:

> OK, thanks for all of your support, we pass the vote for Tomcat 7.0.0.1. I will promote it to central repository later.
> Three binding vote :
> Rick, Ivan, and Joe Bohn.

Ivan,
IMO, calling this vote was premature. No strict guidelines were broken, so the vote stands. However, this is not how I would like to see votes run in the Geronimo community. Please don't repeat. And I'll note that I would expect the Geronimo community do do a better job of monitoring... Things that I'm noting:

1) A bare minimum of 3 PMC votes
2) There were several comments/questions on this release. There were answers/responses, but no attempt to see if the questions were resolved satisfactorily.  
3) You identified a functional problem with the release, waited 12 hours and called the vote. IMO, this did not provide much time for additional review or comments. No one said "I agree".
4) The vote ran for 4 days (minimum is 3). However, given the above conditions, IMO the vote should have run for a longer time.

--kevan

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)

[Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>]

Thanks, Kevan !

2010/5/10 Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>

>
> On May 8, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Ivan wrote:
>
> > OK, thanks for all of your support, we pass the vote for Tomcat 7.0.0.1.
> I will promote it to central repository later.
> > Three binding vote :
> > Rick, Ivan, and Joe Bohn.
>
> Ivan,
> IMO, calling this vote was premature. No strict guidelines were broken, so
> the vote stands. However, this is not how I would like to see votes run in
> the Geronimo community. Please don't repeat. And I'll note that I would
> expect the Geronimo community do do a better job of monitoring... Things
> that I'm noting:
>
> 1) A bare minimum of 3 PMC votes
> 2) There were several comments/questions on this release. There were
> answers/responses, but no attempt to see if the questions were resolved
> satisfactorily.
> 3) You identified a functional problem with the release, waited 12 hours
> and called the vote. IMO, this did not provide much time for additional
> review or comments. No one said "I agree".
> 4) The vote ran for 4 days (minimum is 3). However, given the above
> conditions, IMO the vote should have run for a longer time.
>
> --kevan




-- 
Ivan