You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2012/04/23 17:39:44 UTC
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Hi Everyone,
We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and only
two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted
in favour of a +1.
Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum
of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As
a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I
am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package
VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to
progress with this.
Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
Best
Lewis
[0]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
The short answer is that you need to grow the number of active PMC members
(not sure why users is on a vote; they don't at all). You need three +1
votes to ensure that the release has been fully-reviewed. One or two PMC
Members cannot make a release in the name of the ASF. It takes a minimum of
three.
So... get more actives and/or get the other PMC Members off their butt to
inspect the release candidate and sign it with their key. Three signatures,
and you're good to go.
(and please avoid rubber stamps; get some real review)
Cheers,
-g
On Apr 23, 2012 11:40 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and
> only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were
> weighted in favour of a +1.
>
> Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum
> of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As
> a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I
> am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package
> VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to
> progress with this.
>
> Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
>
> Best
>
> Lewis
>
> [0]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Yeah I wasn't saying that there was lazy consensus. I said, if you have
2 +1 VOTES, and you need a 3rd, then you don't have to call the VOTE
closed at that point just b/c 72 hours passed. That you can just say that
the VOTE is open *for at least* 72 hours, and then just leave it open if
you don't have 3 +1s yet.
My "lazy" word below was to refer to myself or others in Gora who are
either busy/lazy/whatever and that haven't got time to review the release
candidate yet which is why Lewis doesn't have 3 +1 VOTEs. However
Henry and I both said that we'd try to make time to do it in the next few
days.
In general, my principle is just to leave a release VOTE or a people
VOTE open indefinitely if I was the one that called it, until I get my
desired outcome (which in this case for release, no one is arguing,
is 3 +1 VOTEs) :) Hope that explains my perspective.
Cheers,
Chris
On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Huh? A release is not lazy consensus. You need three +1 votes.
>
> On Apr 23, 2012 11:52 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Lewis,
>
> FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
>
> http://s.apache.org/49d
>
> In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
> folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is,
> as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired
> outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome,
> so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE
> closed, and then move forward.
>
> Great job pushing this forward.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1.
> >
> > Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this.
> >
> > Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Lewis
> >
> > [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Huh? A release is not lazy consensus. You need three +1 votes.
On Apr 23, 2012 11:52 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Lewis,
>
> FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
>
> http://s.apache.org/49d
>
> In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
> folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The
> truth is,
> as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular
> desired
> outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with
> the outcome,
> so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the
> VOTE
> closed, and then move forward.
>
> Great job pushing this forward.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and
> only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were
> weighted in favour of a +1.
> >
> > Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum
> quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go
> next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in
> this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release
> package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice
> on how to progress with this.
> >
> > Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Lewis
> >
> > [0]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Oops thread correction that original one was held up in mod and
never delivered because I wasn't subscribed on user@. Here's
the one from dev@.
http://s.apache.org/mLZ
Cheers,
Chris
On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hey Lewis,
>
> FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
>
> http://s.apache.org/49d
>
> In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
> folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is,
> as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired
> outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome,
> so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE
> closed, and then move forward.
>
> Great job pushing this forward.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1.
>>
>> Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this.
>>
>> Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Lewis
>>
>> [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 23, 2012 3:20 PM, "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2012 2:21 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> >...
>
> >
> > In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by
say,
> > coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE
immediately
> > after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be
> > contentious should have a fixed end-time.
>
> Since a release cannot be vetoed... sure, the RM could stop the vote. But
the goal is to get signatures, too, so there is no strong benefit to
stopping early.
To rephrase: there is no such thing as a "contentious release vote".
Cheers
-g
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 23, 2012 2:21 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>...
>
> In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by
say,
> coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE
immediately
> after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be
> contentious should have a fixed end-time.
Since a release cannot be vetoed... sure, the RM could stop the vote. But
the goal is to get signatures, too, so there is no strong benefit to
stopping early.
Cheers,
-g
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
> folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is,
> as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired
> outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome,
> so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE
> closed, and then move forward.
+1
We have the language "at least 72 hours" baked into our RM template email.
In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by say,
coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE immediately
after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be
contentious should have a fixed end-time.
However, most ASF VOTEs are not contentious, and "at least 72 hours" seems to
work well. As a convenience, perhaps it's vaguely similar to a parliamentary
"voice vote". Voice votes can be challenged, and anyone wanting to challenge
a VOTE which runs for "at least 72 hours" will have "at least 72
hours" to do so. :)
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comments.
Best
Lewis
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hey Lewis,
>
> FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
>
> http://s.apache.org/49d
>
> In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
> folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The
> truth is,
> as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular
> desired
> outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with
> the outcome,
> so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the
> VOTE
> closed, and then move forward.
>
> Great job pushing this forward.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and
> only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were
> weighted in favour of a +1.
> >
> > Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum
> quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go
> next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in
> this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release
> package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice
> on how to progress with this.
> >
> > Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Lewis
> >
> > [0]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
--
*Lewis*
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hey Lewis,
FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list:
http://s.apache.org/49d
In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way
folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is,
as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired
outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome,
so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE
closed, and then move forward.
Great job pushing this forward.
My 2c.
Cheers,
Chris
On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and dev@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1.
>
> Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this.
>
> Thanks for any direction and/or comments.
>
> Best
>
> Lewis
>
> [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org