You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Kam Kasravi <ka...@gmail.com> on 2016/07/18 02:28:56 UTC
[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
The results are in and voting is now closed.
[2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
Andrew Purtell (binding)
[2] -1 Do not release this package
Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
Thanks
Kam
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Kam Kasravi <ka...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Thanks Ted, Justin. Your comments provide a reassuring backdrop to those of us in gearpump which are new to the voting process.We've made the corrections as suggested and will get 0.8.1-RC4 out in a timely manner.
Kam
On Monday, July 18, 2016 9:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Ted for a friendly explanation of all that.
> Typically what happens in a smooth functioning project is that if somebody
> points out a heinous problem (forgot to include the source code in a source
> release, say), everybody (or nearly everybody) who previously voted +1 will
> immediately change their vote to -1 for the release.
Also sometimes you can convince someone to change their mind and turn a -1 into a +1 as well.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Thanks Ted for a friendly explanation of all that.
> Typically what happens in a smooth functioning project is that if somebody
> points out a heinous problem (forgot to include the source code in a source
> release, say), everybody (or nearly everybody) who previously voted +1 will
> immediately change their vote to -1 for the release.
Also sometimes you can convince someone to change their mind and turn a -1 into a +1 as well.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> > 4. Veto rule differences (or lack thereof) within the general@ voting
> vs dev@<podling> voting
>
> Releases can not be vetoed [3], a -1 is not a veto. 3 +1 are required and
> more +1s than -1s.
Typically what happens in a smooth functioning project is that if somebody
points out a heinous problem (forgot to include the source code in a source
release, say), everybody (or nearly everybody) who previously voted +1 will
immediately change their vote to -1 for the release.
But it should be emphasized that there is a rather confusing overlay here
of formality and informality at Apache. There is some very strict
formality, for instance, about getting the intellectual property issues of
releases very, very correct. This is foreign to most new incubation
projects and takes time to get used to. On the other hand, votes are best
viewed as a way to record consensus rather than a way to make decisions.
This is much more informal in many ways than people expect after they see
the rigor on IP.
The thesis is that votes used as decisions might as well be bludgeons for
coercing a minority interest. As such, votes as decision machines can
easily be very divisive and often lead to factionalization in a project. In
a smooth-running Apache project, votes just record decisions that have
already been made.
With this cultural context in mind, you can see why a single -1 in a
release vote can unroll the entire release if it is a surprise. A tight
project will generally view the surprising appearance of a -1 vote as a
serious bug in consensus and it isn't uncommon for several +1 votes to flip
in response in order to allow time for the consensus to be mended. The wish
to register a protest vote without breaking consensus is the rationale for
the -0 vote.
Lots of projects don't work this well and I doubt that any project always
works this well. But when this works, it is really nice. Definitely
something to aspire to.
Note that this also explains a bit about why the "rules" about how to
conduct a vote are a bit ambiguous. Basically, if you have to read the
rules really carefully to understand how a vote came out, it is best to
back out of the vote itself and focus a bit on community building rather
than reading rulebooks. That means that the edge cases shouldn't be
important to you.
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> 1. A tie (and if the voting period will be extended when a tie occurs)
Would not pass. For a release you need at least 3 +1 binding votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. [1]
> .2. Less than the required number of votes (+3 and how this will extend the voting period)
The vote lasts until you have the required votes and a minimum amount of time has passed (usually 72 hours). [2]
> 3. Whether a non-incubator PMC member (who is the release manager) has CANCEL authority at the general@ voting level.
Usually the release manager (i.e. the one who called the vote) cancels it.
> 4. Veto rule differences (or lack thereof) within the general@ voting vs dev@<podling> voting
Releases can not be vetoed [3], a -1 is not a veto. 3 +1 are required and more +1s than -1s.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
2. http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#expressing-votes-1-0-1-and-fractions
3.http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Kam Kasravi <ka...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Thanks John, Craig and Ted for weighing in on this matter.
I wasn't clear about a few of the rules related to voting including:
1. A tie (and if the voting period will be extended when a tie occurs).2. Less than the required number of votes (+3 and how this will extend the voting period)3. Whether a non-incubator PMC member (who is the release manager) has CANCEL authority at the general@ voting level.4. Veto rule differences (or lack thereof) within the general@ voting vs dev@<podling> voting
My apologies if I missed this information within the Apache release related documents.My intent was to convey that I agreed with the -1 votes cast and to indicate we would resubmit a new release candidate.Note:I did not state that the vote failed because it was unclear to me it had (due to lack of minimum votes required at the end of the voting period and a tie).I did not state that the vote was cancelled since i had interpreted this in a manner similar to Ted - you cannot cancel a vote if the voting period has ended.
I do believe at this time there is clarification that in this case the vote did not succeed and we will submit a new release candidate.Should we update the http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes (I can volunteer), adding the above clarifications would be valuable.
ThanksKam
On Monday, July 18, 2016 8:51 AM, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 8:43 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the
>> major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next
>> vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start immediately
>> without confusion.
>>
>>
> Fair enough. When reading it, my first inclination was that it looked like
> it passed. I still think it would be better if we made there was something
> saying the vote did not pass.
>
I don’t disagree. I think the incubator documentation could be better by including the CANCEL procedure. It’s not clear that we have consensus on whether a CANCELed vote has a RESULT. ;-)
I’d propose that any VOTE has a RESULT: passed, failed, or canceled. Let the arrows fly!
And the comdev pages could also be similarly improved, for anyone who has an interest.
Craig
> John
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly
>>> fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading
>>>
>>>>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>
>>> Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes
>>>
>>> "It is conventional to end a VOTE thread with a RESULT post tallying the
>>> votes cast. To preserve the thread, this should be done by replying to
>> the
>>> original VOTE post and adding a [RESULT] prefix. The subject may be
>>> retained as is or edited to indicate the result."
>>>
>>> I have seen both positive and negative vote results announced as results.
>>>
>>> If we expect folks to follow the proposed rule “Usually when a vote does
>>> not pass, the person initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather
>> than a
>>> [RESULT] (result inherently is treated as a "it passed" email).” we
>> should
>>> publish this rule somewhere.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes
>>> are
>>>> placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and
>>> -2,
>>>> which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying
>> the
>>>> vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
>>>> initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
>>>> inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
>>>> that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi
>>> <ka...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John
>>>>> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a
>> new
>>>>> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to
>>> explicitly
>>>>> say 'cancel' the vote?
>>>>> ThanksKam
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <
>>> johndament@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
>>>>> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The results are in and voting is now closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
>>>>>> Andrew Purtell (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] -1 Do not release this package
>>>>>> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
>>>>>> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Kam
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect
>>> craig.russell@oracle.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 8:43 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the
>> major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next
>> vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start immediately
>> without confusion.
>>
>>
> Fair enough. When reading it, my first inclination was that it looked like
> it passed. I still think it would be better if we made there was something
> saying the vote did not pass.
>
I don’t disagree. I think the incubator documentation could be better by including the CANCEL procedure. It’s not clear that we have consensus on whether a CANCELed vote has a RESULT. ;-)
I’d propose that any VOTE has a RESULT: passed, failed, or canceled. Let the arrows fly!
And the comdev pages could also be similarly improved, for anyone who has an interest.
Craig
> John
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly
>>> fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading
>>>
>>>>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>
>>> Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes
>>>
>>> "It is conventional to end a VOTE thread with a RESULT post tallying the
>>> votes cast. To preserve the thread, this should be done by replying to
>> the
>>> original VOTE post and adding a [RESULT] prefix. The subject may be
>>> retained as is or edited to indicate the result."
>>>
>>> I have seen both positive and negative vote results announced as results.
>>>
>>> If we expect folks to follow the proposed rule “Usually when a vote does
>>> not pass, the person initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather
>> than a
>>> [RESULT] (result inherently is treated as a "it passed" email).” we
>> should
>>> publish this rule somewhere.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes
>>> are
>>>> placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and
>>> -2,
>>>> which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying
>> the
>>>> vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
>>>> initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
>>>> inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
>>>> that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi
>>> <ka...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John
>>>>> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a
>> new
>>>>> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to
>>> explicitly
>>>>> say 'cancel' the vote?
>>>>> ThanksKam
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <
>>> johndament@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
>>>>> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The results are in and voting is now closed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
>>>>>> Andrew Purtell (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2] -1 Do not release this package
>>>>>> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
>>>>>> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Kam
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect
>>> craig.russell@oracle.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the
> major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next
> vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start immediately
> without confusion.
>
>
Fair enough. When reading it, my first inclination was that it looked like
it passed. I still think it would be better if we made there was something
saying the vote did not pass.
John
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly
> > fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading
> >
> > >>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
> >
> > Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes
> >
> > "It is conventional to end a VOTE thread with a RESULT post tallying the
> > votes cast. To preserve the thread, this should be done by replying to
> the
> > original VOTE post and adding a [RESULT] prefix. The subject may be
> > retained as is or edited to indicate the result."
> >
> > I have seen both positive and negative vote results announced as results.
> >
> > If we expect folks to follow the proposed rule “Usually when a vote does
> > not pass, the person initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather
> than a
> > [RESULT] (result inherently is treated as a "it passed" email).” we
> should
> > publish this rule somewhere.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes
> > are
> > > placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and
> > -2,
> > > which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying
> the
> > > vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
> > > initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
> > > inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
> > > that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi
> > <ka...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi John
> > >> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a
> new
> > >> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to
> > explicitly
> > >> say 'cancel' the vote?
> > >> ThanksKam
> > >>
> > >> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <
> > johndament@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
> > >> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> The results are in and voting is now closed.
> > >>>
> > >>> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
> > >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
> > >>> Andrew Purtell (binding)
> > >>>
> > >>> [2] -1 Do not release this package
> > >>> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
> > >>> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
> > >>>
> > >>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Kam
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect
> > craig.russell@oracle.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the
major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next
vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start immediately
without confusion.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly
> fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading
>
> >>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>
> Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes
>
> "It is conventional to end a VOTE thread with a RESULT post tallying the
> votes cast. To preserve the thread, this should be done by replying to the
> original VOTE post and adding a [RESULT] prefix. The subject may be
> retained as is or edited to indicate the result."
>
> I have seen both positive and negative vote results announced as results.
>
> If we expect folks to follow the proposed rule “Usually when a vote does
> not pass, the person initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a
> [RESULT] (result inherently is treated as a "it passed" email).” we should
> publish this rule somewhere.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes
> are
> > placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and
> -2,
> > which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying the
> > vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
> > initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
> > inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
> > that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi
> <ka...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John
> >> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a new
> >> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to
> explicitly
> >> say 'cancel' the vote?
> >> ThanksKam
> >>
> >> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <
> johndament@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
> >> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The results are in and voting is now closed.
> >>>
> >>> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
> >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
> >>> Andrew Purtell (binding)
> >>>
> >>> [2] -1 Do not release this package
> >>> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
> >>> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
> >>>
> >>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Kam
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect
> craig.russell@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Craig Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Hi John,
Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading
>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#note-votes
"It is conventional to end a VOTE thread with a RESULT post tallying the votes cast. To preserve the thread, this should be done by replying to the original VOTE post and adding a [RESULT] prefix. The subject may be retained as is or edited to indicate the result."
I have seen both positive and negative vote results announced as results.
If we expect folks to follow the proposed rule “Usually when a vote does not pass, the person initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result inherently is treated as a "it passed" email).” we should publish this rule somewhere.
Regards,
Craig
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:38 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes are
> placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and -2,
> which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying the
> vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
> initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
> inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
> that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi <ka...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John
>> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a new
>> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to explicitly
>> say 'cancel' the vote?
>> ThanksKam
>>
>> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
>> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The results are in and voting is now closed.
>>>
>>> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
>>> Andrew Purtell (binding)
>>>
>>> [2] -1 Do not release this package
>>> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
>>> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
>>>
>>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Kam
>>>
>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect
craig.russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes are
placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and -2,
which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying the
vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person
initiating the vote sends out a [CANCEL] rather than a [RESULT] (result
inherently is treated as a "it passed" email). Cancel makes it clearer
that you're withdrawing the vote due to the issues raised.
John
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:00 AM Kam Kasravi <ka...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi John
> The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a new
> candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to explicitly
> say 'cancel' the vote?
> ThanksKam
>
> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> Did you mean to cancel this vote?
> On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The results are in and voting is now closed.
> >
> > [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
> > Andrew Purtell (binding)
> >
> > [2] -1 Do not release this package
> > Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
> > John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
> >
> > We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Kam
> >
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by Kam Kasravi <ka...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Hi John
The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a new candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to explicitly say 'cancel' the vote?
ThanksKam
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
Did you mean to cancel this vote?
On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The results are in and voting is now closed.
>
> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
> Andrew Purtell (binding)
>
> [2] -1 Do not release this package
> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
>
> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>
> Thanks
> Kam
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Did you mean to cancel this vote?
On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The results are in and voting is now closed.
>
> [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding)
> Andrew Purtell (binding)
>
> [2] -1 Do not release this package
> Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems
> John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER
>
> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4.
>
> Thanks
> Kam
>