I completely agree with Chris D's separate email too about not
vote'ing about intentions, and voting on actual artifacts.
The fact of the matter at the ASF is that any PMC member; heck any
contributor can roll a release candidate. If that candidate receives
at least 3 PMC member +1s (to make it binding as backed by the Foundation
and its distributed committees and structure), and more +1s than -1s,
you've got yourself
a release. It's up to someone on the PMC/committee at that point to publish
the bits on ASF infrastructure and ultimately to make sure that whoever
the RC has a key that's present in a KEYS file or on id.apache.org, but
beyond that, that's it.*
* - if Joe Schmoe comes along and makes a release candidate that passes
muster with the Hadoop PMC, then I would expect Joe Schmoe should be added
to the PMC :)
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
From: Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:10 PM
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote
>This has been a side topic in several email threads recently. Currently
>have an ambiguity. We have a tradition in the dev community that any
>committer can create a branch, and propose release candidates from it.
>the Hadoop bylaws say that releases have to be planned in advance, the
>needs to be voted on, and presumably can be denied.
>Apache policies (primarily here <http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>
> and here <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>, with
>are very clear on how Releases have to be approved, and our bylaws are
>consistent with those policies. But Apache policies don't say anything
>I've found about Release Plans, nor about voting on Release Plans.
>I propose the following change, to remove Release Plan votes, and give a
>simple definition of Release Manager role. I'm opening discussion with
>this proposal, and will put it to a vote if we seem to be getting
>consensus. Here's the changes I suggest in the
>1. In the "Decision Making" : "Actions" section of the Bylaws, the
>following text is removed:
>** Release Plan*
>Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also nominates a
>Lazy majority of active committers
>2. In the "Roles and Responsibilities" section of the Bylaws, an
>role is defined:
>** Release Manager*
>A Release Manager (RM) is a committer who volunteers to produce a Release
>Candidate according to
> The RM shall publish a Release Plan on the *common-dev@* list stating the
>branch from which they intend to make a Release Candidate, at least one
>week before they do so. The RM is responsible for building consensus
>the content of the Release Candidate, in order to achieve a successful
>Product Release vote.
>Please share your views.
>--Matt (long-time release manager)