Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process

[Brandon Philips]

Hello Michael, Alex, Vish, Mrunal, Vincent, Daniel, Tianon, and Qiang-

This thread is a call to vote and ratify the OCI project release process. The goal of the document is to standardize how a release is made by OCI project maintainers so everyone knows the bar to making major and minor releases.

You can read the entire document here: https://github.com/philips/tob/blob/9553cfee4569f32f9a451c1fff41f30e2c261deb/proposals/release-approval-process.md

If you agree with using this process on releases of the OCI Image Spec project please reply with LGTM. Otherwise, please reply with REJECT with an explanation.

Over the two weeks the proposal process the document been improved and debated by 10 members of the OCI community and had 17 improvements made from the original draft. I think it is in good shape and I look forward to getting releases rolling again using the process. You can see the discussion here: https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15

Once all MAINTAINERS reply with an LGTM I will add it to the OCI project-template as RELEASE.md.

Thank You,

Brandon

[Brandon Philips]

Hello Brendan, Jason, John, Jonathan, Stephen, Vincent-

This thread is a call to vote and ratify the OCI project release process. The goal of the document is to standardize how a release is made by OCI project maintainers so everyone knows the bar to making major and minor releases.

You can read the entire document here: https://github.com/philips/tob/blob/9553cfee4569f32f9a451c1fff41f30e2c261deb/proposals/release-approval-process.md

If you agree with using this process on releases of the OCI Image Spec project please reply with LGTM. Otherwise, please reply with REJECT with an explanation.

Over the last two weeks this document been improved and debated by 10 members of the OCI community and had 17 improvements made from the original draft. I think it is in good shape and I look forward to getting releases rolling again using the process. You can see the discussion here: https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15

[Brendan Burns]

LGTM

[Dao Quang Minh]

Hello Brandon,

Can you clarfify the part about security notice ? Who will receive notifications and respond to secu...@opencontainers.org and what's the policy around that (early warnings etc.)?

Daniel.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dev+uns...@opencontainers.org.

[Tianon Gravi]

LGTM

♥,
- Tianon
4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4

[Jason Bouzane]

I have a few concerns, but only one I think might possibly be blocking. They are:

1. (Not a blocker) There are a few places where the wording is a little troublesome. Specifically:

a) It discusses a cadence "greater" than 4 weeks. What does this mean? I assume greater means "less frequent" given the context but it's not clear. I suggest changing it to clarify.

b) What's a "breaking change"? Such a change would restart the rc cycle, but it isn't defined.

c) (While I'm here, might as well point this out) In Specifications->Planning a release, there's a grammar error:

Every OCI specification project SHOULD hold meetings that involves -> Every OCI specification project SHOULD hold meetings that involve

2. (Possibly a blocker) What's the procedure for changing the release requirements document? It doesn't outline the procedure for updating itself. Is that elaborated elsewhere? Should we define a procedure for changing it before we release it so that we know how to change it later?

As long as we're confident we have an agreed upon way to update the procedure later, I'm fine with approving as it is and fixing other problems later.

[Brandon Philips]

Hello Daniel-

Added an explanation: "The secu...@opencontainers.org email includes all members of the TOB; the TOB will guide the security sensitive release with project maintainers". Does that make sense to you?

https://github.com/philips/tob/commit/37088fbfa66b5bbda4f0b1805b35e4eb37589e45

Cheers,

Brandon

[Vincent Batts]

Largely LGTM. One nit added to the PR. 

I'd like to see Jason's #2 clarified also.

[Brandon Philips]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:50 PM Vincent Batts <vba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Largely LGTM. One nit added to the PR. 

I'd like to see Jason's #2 clarified also.

Jason and Vincent-

Trevor had the idea of splitting the doc into the governance voting process and a release process. This makes it explicit that a 2/3 quorum vote of the set of all maintainers can update the doc (see the bottom of GOVERNANCE.md). Here is a cleanup of that:

https://github.com/philips/project-template/blob/add-governance-and-releases-docs/GOVERNANCE.md

https://github.com/philips/project-template/blob/add-governance-and-releases-docs/RELEASES.md

What do you think?

The commit history of the entire branch is here: https://github.com/philips/project-template/commits/add-governance-and-releases-docs

Cheers,

Brandon

[Jason Bouzane]

LGTM

[Vincent Batts]

LGTM and the meeting timeline phrasing looks better now too

[John Starks]

LGTM

[W. Trevor King]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:36:50PM +0000, Vincent Batts wrote:
> LGTM and the meeting timeline phrasing looks better now too

I'm not sure how these votes work in the face of a mutating document.
I'd expect this particular thread has devolved into discussion, since
folks are now LGTMing something that is not the original document [1]
(which I'm glad to see was linked with a stable hash). I'd suggest
maintainers who are not satisfied by the initial document (everybody
now?) REJECT this vote, and Philips and a co-sponsor can propose a new
vote on [2] (or some portion thereof. I recommend voting on just the
GOVERNANCE.md, with RELEASES.md as an independent second vote [3]).

Voting on a floating target risks counting LGTMs and REJECTs made by
maintainers who have not chimed in since the target shifted being
counted as if they applied to the new target.

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us
Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNnW+hP7Q3NPBdYHOKfigU0pvbgcphKPhRB=ZfQB...@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/c9a01f5fb1c59c91d7ebba624f0dc6970f863d6c
[3]: https://github.com/philips/tob/pull/2#issuecomment-228512168
Subject: project-governance: Make voting more generic

--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[Vishnu Kannan]

LGTM

[Mrunal Patel]

LGTM

[Qiang Huang]

LGTM

[Frederick Kautz]

One option is to use github for voting. It should be able to see if lgtm messages are on more recent or stale versions.

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:32:58AM +0000, Frederick Kautz wrote:
> One option is to use github for voting. It should be able to see if
> lgtm messages are on more recent or stale versions.

That would work, although I don't see how it's all that much easier
than rejecting the old thread and launching a new thread on the list
(e.g. see the three rounds of image-spec voting [1,2,3]). But both
email-based and PR-based Git development work pretty well, so I expect
the choice is probably a “which environment do the maintainers like
best” project-culture decision.

PullApprove or lgtm.co [4] should be able to track LGTMs / REJECTs in
GitHub PRs. I doubt any off-the-shelf tool is going to support per-PR
quorum requirements (e.g. 2 LGTMs for general PRs, but ⅔ for
project-governance-related and release PRs), but checking that by hand
for the less-frequent ⅔ case shouldn't be too hard (and you'd be doing
it anyway with list-based voting). And I doubt either support
ABSTAIN, but that's only really useful in quorum-dodging corner cases
anyway.

Keeping multiple rounds in a single GitHub PR gives the submitter (or
others with push access) unique power to pull the plug on an old
proposal by pushing a change to the PR branch. But I doubt that would
be much of a problem in practice. I'd miss the easy ability to link
to previous versions of a proposal (e.g. [1,2]), since it takes a bit
of digging to find discussion on outdated hunks of GitHub PRs, but
that's survivable ;).

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/tob/WXk1uTgfXrs
Subject: Proposal for a new project: OCI Image Format Spec
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:33:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPCZRUXOER-Fz7WKsnNwYA-PoPmCG59jD1i3=xgYn...@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/tob/h2x5aLVX2PY
Subject: Proposal for a new project: OCI Image Format Spec (v2)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 05:01:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtMRhJhGBDwt77_L7Ac4LJ22Zsys+Q=zJLvYA1...@mail.gmail.com>
[3]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/tob/KGyPpu8YfNk
Subject: ACTION: Proposal for a new project: OCI Image Format Spec (v3)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 01:41:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNiOgCgLgZk--4bfrdywTmwP=bqSxvkSJ-rv=PTEo...@mail.gmail.com>
[4]: https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/issues/916
Subject: Replace PullApprove with lgtm.co

[W. Trevor King]

Summarzing the state of this vote so far:

# v1 [1,2]

LGTMs: Brendan Burns [3], Tianon Gravi [4].
REJECTs: Aleksa Sarai [5], Dao Quang Minh [6], Jason Bouzane [7].

# v2 [8,9]

Adding wording about security@ and the TOB.

LGTMs: Vincent Batts (“Largely LGTM” [10]).

# v3 [11,12]

Splitting into GOVERNANCE.md and RELEASES.md.

LGTMS: Jason Bouzane [13], John Starks [14], Mrunal Patel [15], Qiang
Huang [16], Vincent Batts [17], Vishnu Kannan [18].

ABSTAINs: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Andrey Vagin, Brandon
Philips, Brendan Burns, Dao Quang Minh, Jason Bouzane, Jonathan
Boulle, Michael Crosby, Mrunal Patel, Rohit Jnagal, Stephen Day,
Tianon Gravi, Victor Marmol.

If we count Brandon as a LGTM (seems safe, although I don't see a
message explicitly posting that vote) and roll forward votes on
previous versions, the current counts are:

LGTMS (9): Brandon Philips, Brendan Burns [3], Jason Bouzane [13],
John Starks [14], Mrunal Patel [15], Qiang Huang [16], Tianon Gravi
[4], Vincent Batts [17], Vishnu Kannan [18].

REJECTs (2): Aleksa Sarai [5], Dao Quang Minh [6].

ABSTAINs (12): Alexander Morozov, Andrey Vagin, Brandon Philips,
Brendan Burns, Jason Bouzane, Jonathan Boulle, Michael Crosby,
Mrunal Patel, Rohit Jnagal, Stephen Day, Tianon Gravi, Victor
Marmol.

So passing (82% of votes in favor) but under quorum (48% of
maintainers voting). If we lower quorum for these things from ⅔ to ½
and allow mutating proposals, we're really close to having this pass
;).

Cheeers,
Trevor

[1]: https://github.com/philips/tob/blob/9553cfee4569f32f9a451c1fff41f30e2c261deb/proposals/release-approval-process.md
[2]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtMsOEB=DWRCihnTrNJ1m6RuJR-...@mail.gmail.com>
[3]: Message-ID: <CACVcpfphxxtSHMPoeQskFE1F...@mail.gmail.com>
[4]: Message-ID: <CAHnKnK23AjMO__QDMrbK9ePK...@mail.gmail.com>
[5]: Message-ID: <CAOviyajcxbbqZOoPQWTwv25iFT=NqR36xz+Atq...@mail.gmail.com>
[6]: Message-ID: <CAFoGUixNA49nKmrdMA-Pqqf5aA=BOftUZJ0+0W...@mail.gmail.com>
[7]: Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ...@mail.gmail.com>
[8]: https://github.com/philips/tob/commit/37088fbfa66b5bbda4f0b1805b35e4eb37589e45
[9]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtP7c-xSyXv9Jdz8X=6WOZRwxB8dno4_DADw8Q4hgHK=m...@mail.gmail.com>
[10]: Message-ID: <CAN6Zp5y2=+U6niSDGGQC1ag0o8PCbp...@mail.gmail.com>
[11]: https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/c9a01f5fb1c59c91d7ebba624f0dc6970f863d6c
[12]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPazRCBNHRHGyUt=wAA+=fber0AErqz5rnf4irc=QX...@mail.gmail.com>
[13]: Message-ID: <CAFi6z1Hq5t53LwPEe47gNHbWbM7=spWmha8Z99e...@mail.gmail.com>
[14]: Message-ID: <SN1PR0301MB207885AF8...@SN1PR0301MB2078.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
[15]: Message-ID: <CANEZBD5UnZbUSseb4xA5OLMFKzwDBw1tEo=m=uC8L3i...@mail.gmail.com>
[16]: Message-ID: <CAMrcrYOVRKQk91U34x3oWjg1...@mail.gmail.com>
[17]: Message-ID: <CAN6Zp5wkKX+GvB7wW04QcukY...@mail.gmail.com>
[18]: Message-ID: <CAA_vbqQyf8sRMF3FjW4zD7CnQxJyDwi=nJhu+t2F+1EW1==E...@mail.gmail.com>

[Stephen Day]

I was abstaining until we had a stable document. I had no issue with the document at the outset but I'm not sure what the changes are after the split.

Is it out of line call a revote on the stable document?

Stephen.

[2]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtMsOEB=DWRCihnTrNJ1m6RuJR-C3XjUOorz4DNOKdfMcA@mail.gmail.com>
[3]: Message-ID: <CACVcpfphxxtSHMPoeQskFE1FA7X1u3RO5aBd0RUZ7orMXuZReg@mail.gmail.com>
[4]: Message-ID: <CAHnKnK23AjMO__QDMrbK9ePK-y-HUcYtPCUXjK38hVV6HioQYQ@mail.gmail.com>
[5]: Message-ID: <CAOviyajcxbbqZOoPQWTwv25iFT=NqR36xz+AtqgQv5xJXpCQ-w@mail.gmail.com>
[6]: Message-ID: <CAFoGUixNA49nKmrdMA-Pqqf5aA=BOftUZJ0+0WxqfccQZXmFeQ@mail.gmail.com>
[7]: Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ_MromgpQ4qHCQ3R9_NwZNYBX5w@mail.gmail.com>

[8]: https://github.com/philips/tob/commit/37088fbfa66b5bbda4f0b1805b35e4eb37589e45
[9]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtP7c-xSyXv9Jdz8X=6WOZRwxB8dno4_DADw8Q4hgHK=m...@mail.gmail.com>

[10]: Message-ID: <CAN6Zp5y2=+U6niSDGGQC1ag0o8PCbpDLm4Y0k4BVNyEJxh-0mA@mail.gmail.com>

[11]: https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/c9a01f5fb1c59c91d7ebba624f0dc6970f863d6c
[12]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPazRCBNHRHGyUt=wAA+=fber0AErqz5rnf4irc=QX...@mail.gmail.com>

[13]: Message-ID: <CAFi6z1Hq5t53LwPEe47gNHbWbM7=spWmha8Z99eLFd9fo2otOw@mail.gmail.com>
[14]: Message-ID: <SN1PR0301MB207885AF856FF28A83DC22B7E0230@SN1PR0301MB2078.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
[15]: Message-ID: <CANEZBD5UnZbUSseb4xA5OLMFKzwDBw1tEo=m=uC8L3i...@mail.gmail.com>
[16]: Message-ID: <CAMrcrYOVRKQk91U34x3oWjg16rbgyF1gWziz3gBTXPMJoyoG2w@mail.gmail.com>
[17]: Message-ID: <CAN6Zp5wkKX+GvB7wW04QcukYUVq-i1sJETvmCRtubSJk+ER1tQ@mail.gmail.com>

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:50:14AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> If we count Brandon as a LGTM (seems safe, although I don't see a
> message explicitly posting that vote) and roll forward votes on
> previous versions, the current counts are:
>
> LGTMS (9): Brandon Philips, Brendan Burns [3], Jason Bouzane [13],
> John Starks [14], Mrunal Patel [15], Qiang Huang [16], Tianon
> Gravi [4], Vincent Batts [17], Vishnu Kannan [18].
>
> REJECTs (2): Aleksa Sarai [5], Dao Quang Minh [6].
>
> ABSTAINs (12): Alexander Morozov, Andrey Vagin, Brandon Philips,
> Brendan Burns, Jason Bouzane, Jonathan Boulle, Michael Crosby,
> Mrunal Patel, Rohit Jnagal, Stephen Day, Tianon Gravi, Victor
> Marmol.
>
> So passing (82% of votes in favor) but under quorum (48% of
> maintainers voting). If we lower quorum for these things from ⅔ to
> ½ and allow mutating proposals, we're really close to having this
> pass ;).

I'd given Brandon both a LGTM and an ABSTAIN in this count, so it
should have been only 11 ABSTAINs. That means that the vote-count is
exactly 50% of maintainers ((9+2)/(9+2+11)=0.5), with the assumptions
listed in the first paragraph I'm quoting here.

And I agree with Stephen that it's better to vote on the exact hash
[1,2]. I still have some concerns with the v3 suggestion [3,4], so
I'm not sure the current v3 is stable or not, but both of those
concerns can be addressed through the amendment process if folks want
to approve v3 and then consider follow up changes separately.

On the other hand, none of this matters if we can't get either ⅔ of
maintainers voting or a quorum reduction to 50% ;).

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/eQvRZffNBQAJ
Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:27:11 -0700
Message-ID: <20160629182...@odin.tremily.us>
[2]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/UIZgqXo7CQAJ
Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process (current tally: +9 -2 #12)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <a2712d82-fa01-4e94...@opencontainers.org>
[3]: https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/cc998d7cb13ca76a0bf872d8973118ba9a759c2c#commitcomment-18054437
I'd rather not pull in the TOB, especially not without their
explicit approval.
[4]: https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/c9a01f5fb1c59c91d7ebba624f0dc6970f863d6c#commitcomment-18054425
I'd rather not call projects out by name, since that requires an
amendment vote after the TOB adds or removes a project.

[Aleksa Sarai]

>> REJECTs (2): Aleksa Sarai [5], Dao Quang Minh [6].

To be clear, I'm not an image-spec maintainer.

--
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com

[W. Trevor King]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 05:40:16PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >> REJECTs (2): Aleksa Sarai [5], Dao Quang Minh [6].
>
> To be clear, I'm not an image-spec maintainer.

I'm not exactly clear on how this vote was supposed to break down by
project. I expect an OCI-wide vote for project-template, and
per-project votes for inclusion in the individual projects, but that's
not spelled out explicitly in the proposals themselves (which only
talk about project-template [1,2,3]).

And the per-project voting is slightly tangled here because while runC
got it's own thread/subject [1], the runtime-spec [2] and image-spec
[3] seeds (judging by their maintainer lists) share the same subject
and are therefore displayed as a single thread in the Google Groups
web UI.

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/a90Nx4Md6R4
Subject: Vote Required: OCI runC Release Process
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:39:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtOOB7zn-Bhp2Xgt+Wv4u=+_RAgEt=ic+60Qf=Z3j0...@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us
Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNnW+hP7Q3NPBdYHOKfigU0pvbgcphKPhRB=ZfQB...@mail.gmail.com>

[3]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/lagjrlf3AwAJ
Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:42:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtMsOEB=DWRCihnTrNJ1m6RuJR-...@mail.gmail.com>

[Dao Quang Minh]

> I expect an OCI-wide vote for project-template, and per-project votes for inclusion in the individual projects

This is my understanding too, but not the part about per-project inclusions. I think all projects must opt-in to the release scheme. 

I guess 3 mails to everyone seems a bit confusing :p Think a single thread should be enough.

[Dao Quang Minh]

LGTM as of https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/c9a01f5fb1c59c91d7ebba624f0dc6970f863d6c

[Aleksa Sarai]

LGTM as of https://github.com/philips/project-template/commit/c9a01f5fb1c59c91d7ebba624f0dc6970f863d6c.

[W. Trevor King]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:56:40PM +0000, Brandon Philips wrote:
> You can read the entire document here:
> https://github.com/philips/tob/blob/9553cfee4569f32f9a451c1fff41f30e2c261deb/proposals/release-approval-process.md

This v1 proposal received (from runtime-spec maintainers):

LGTMs: Tianon Gravi [1].
REJECTs: Dao Quang Minh (possibly just a call for clarification) [2].

although it was a bit tangled up with threads for the other OCI
Projects [3]. Brandon has replaced it with a new thread with the
current proposal [4].

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: Message-ID: <CAHnKnK23AjMO__QDMrbK9ePK...@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: Message-ID: <CAFoGUixNA49nKmrdMA-Pqqf5aA=BOftUZJ0+0W...@mail.gmail.com>
[3]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/GhsS6MPiBwAJ

Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process (current tally: +9 -2 #12)

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:50:14 -0700
Message-ID: <20160701165...@odin.tremily.us>
[4]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8
Subject: [project-template VOTE]: Merge governance and release docs at
56abe1227eaf11066fa0005d955b376cbd4883a5 (closes 2016-07-19 19:00 UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:26:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtOVOGJFPG43eXty_dWu...@mail.gmail.com>

[W. Trevor King]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:56:40PM +0000, Brandon Philips wrote:
> You can read the entire document here:
> https://github.com/philips/tob/blob/9553cfee4569f32f9a451c1fff41f30e2c261deb/proposals/release-approval-process.md

This v1 proposal received (from image-spec maintainers):

LGTMs: Brendan Burns [1].
REJECTs: Jason Bouzane (no explicit REJECT, but lists a blocking
concern about amendments) [2].

although it was a bit tangled up with threads for the other OCI
Projects [3]. Brandon has replaced it with a new thread with the
current proposal [4].

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: Message-ID: <CACVcpfphxxtSHMPoeQskFE1F...@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ...@mail.gmail.com>

[3]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/GhsS6MPiBwAJ
Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process (current tally: +9 -2 #12)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:50:14 -0700
Message-ID: <20160701165...@odin.tremily.us>
[4]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8
Subject: [project-template VOTE]: Merge governance and release docs at
56abe1227eaf11066fa0005d955b376cbd4883a5 (closes 2016-07-19 19:00 UTC)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:26:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtOVOGJFPG43eXty_dWu...@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:42:47PM +0000, Brandon Philips wrote:
> Hello Brendan, Jason, John, Jonathan, Stephen, Vincent-
>
> This thread is a call to vote and ratify the OCI project release process.
> The goal of the document is to standardize how a release is made by OCI
> project maintainers so everyone knows the bar to making major and minor
> releases.
>

> You can read the entire document here:
> https://github.com/philips/tob/blob/9553cfee4569f32f9a451c1fff41f30e2c261deb/proposals/release-approval-process.md
>

> If you agree with using this process on releases of the OCI Image Spec
> project please reply with LGTM. Otherwise, please reply with REJECT with an
> explanation.
>
> Over the last two weeks this document been improved and debated by 10
> members of the OCI community and had 17 improvements made from the original
> draft. I think it is in good shape and I look forward to getting releases
> rolling again using the process. You can see the discussion here:
> https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15
>
> Once all MAINTAINERS reply with an LGTM I will add it to the OCI
> project-template as RELEASE.md.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brandon
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dev+uns...@opencontainers.org.