On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
> > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, > then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things would > work in a pTLP, right? Individuals there would effectively cast votes +1 > (binding), or -1 (binding), +1 (non-binding), or -1 (non-binding), etc., > depending if they are a Member or not. Maybe in practice the pTLP PMC > wouldn't write down their votes like that, but somehow the distinction must > be presented in the tallies to be meaningful. > Nah. First: votes should be rare in the first place. Go for consensus instead. Apache Subversion has had maybe 3 votes in its 15 year history. And if you *do* end up voting? People already know who is binding or not. This isn't some star chamber PMC. Everybody knows each other already. If the PMC is voting differently from the others, then you have a problem, regardless of not/binding. Anyways... we'll run the experiment, and see how it works. We may have a candidate already. Cheers, -g
