Re: ACNA Presentation Template

On 22/03/2015 Nick Burch wrote: On 20/03/15 19:46, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ApacheCon EU 2014 http://people.apache.org/~nick/NickTemplateACEU14.odp (this ought to have been uploaded to the Templates site too ...) I've just tried to upload it, but after creating an account on templates.openoffice

Re: ApacheCon Twitter account

You can just sign in to tweetdeck in the browser, without a special app: http://tweetdeck.twitter.com/ -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Santiago Gala wrote: > I would be interested in helping with twitter, but I can't find a way to > use t

RE: Veto! Veto?

In more-formal arrangements, do-overs must be initiated by someone whose vote was on the prevailing side of the previous deliberation. This is a way to avoid constant reconsideration in what is more like an adversarial procedure. The local government where I live is in a state of perpetual rec

RE: Veto! Veto?

I think it is great that there are all of these views on the importance of consensus and how that ties to the nurturing of community and harmony toward a common purpose. I wouldn't even hang around ASF, after having grasped what little of that as I have, if it was not the case. And it is obvio

Re: Veto! Veto?

If it weren't all that difficult and imported to do the righteous thing, we wouldn't have all the 'voting' aspects defined in our by-laws, and we could run the ASF as one of its projects. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufa

Re: Veto! Veto?

D**n. Type-ahead If it weren't all that difficult and important to do the righteous thing, we wouldn't have all the 'voting' aspects defined in our by-laws, and we could run the ASF as one of its projects. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Base

Veto! Veto?

You can't coerce consensus regarding procedural issues by saying: 'do it my way or I veto!' Soon everybody will: veto. Veto. Veto! VETO. VETO!! Even vetoing a vote is not generating consensus. -- Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufact

Re: Veto! Veto?

On 24 March 2015 at 16:15, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 03/24/2015 11:01 AM, jan i wrote: > >> Consider the scenario a PMC discusses, and the vote is called (indirectly >> to stop critical voices) early, then a -1 is the only >> way to express your opinion. >> >> When we define rules, as important

Re: Veto! Veto?

On 03/24/2015 11:01 AM, jan i wrote: Consider the scenario a PMC discusses, and the vote is called (indirectly to stop critical voices) early, then a -1 is the only way to express your opinion. When we define rules, as important as this, we should not look so much at the "good weather" situati

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > ...Consensus in a procedural issue (through voting) is unanimity. Everybody > agrees That's not how I understand our consensus, as in the footnote of [1] my vision of consensus at the ASF is "widespread agreement among people who have dec

Re: ApacheCon Twitter account

On 03/24/2015 10:53 AM, Santiago Gala wrote: I would be interested in helping with twitter, but I can't find a way to use tweetdeck with linux, and I don't use windows (or OS/X). Is there a way to use tweetdeck without proprietary OSes? I use TweetDeck via a Google Chrome plugin on Fedora Lin

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > On 03/24/2015 06:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be >> prepared to defend it. Other members can attempt to encourage them to >> change.' then be removed >> fromhttp://community.

Re: Veto! Veto?

I believe Ross Gardler, our current president said it extremely well: The Apache Way works because of our core principles of consensus building within a meritocratic structure. We are not a democracy, nor are we an oligarchy. As Jim said, and this is true in the projects I

Re: Veto! Veto?

On 24 March 2015 at 15:53, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > On 03/24/2015 06:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> > >> Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be > >> prepared to defend it. Other members can attemp

Re: Veto! Veto?

Consensus in a procedural issue (through voting) is unanimity. Everybody agrees. In procedural issues the veto principle doesn't work as it stalls discussion, hardens viewpoints. Leading to people moving away from getting to a compromise. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 03/24/2015 06:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> >> Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be >> prepared to defend it. Other members can attempt to encourage them to >> change.' then be removed >> fromhttp://co

Re: ApacheCon Twitter account

I would be interested in helping with twitter, but I can't find a way to use tweetdeck with linux, and I don't use windows (or OS/X). Is there a way to use tweetdeck without proprietary OSes? El dom., 22 de marzo de 2015 a las 14:00, Rich Bowen () escribió: > > > On 03/21/2015 01:29 PM, Roman Sha

Re: Veto! Veto?

On 03/24/2015 06:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be prepared to defend it. Other members can attempt to encourage them to change.' then be removed fromhttp://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html? That sentence, and that sentim

Re: Veto! Veto?

Perhaps this discussion stems from questions about how Apache uses the term 'consensus'. In the rest of the world, there is a formally defined 'consensus decision process'. The goal of this process is to make decisions when possible, and leave the status quo otherwise. Very roughly, discussion tak

Re: Veto! Veto?

I agree: consensus reached through discussion as far better than having to do the (majority rule) vote. As with that, you -for sure - don't always get what you want. But it is - by far-the best alternative available to keep movement in a project. And do-overs are possible. Pierre Op dinsdag 24 m

Re: Veto! Veto?

IMO, voting is simply formalizing an already achieved consensus. Voting can also be done to gauge a consensus, but only if done informally, IMO (e.g. "I think we should do Foo. What do you all thing?" and then wait for some +1s, -0s, etc...). You drive consensus by discussion and collaboration and

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Marvin Humphrey > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux > > > > wrote: > > >> Who will update the https://community.

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > ...I dislike all voting, yes. Consensus through discussion is definitely a > better approach That's why I wrote " *in general*, committer elections are..." at https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html - I think that page needs more re

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > In fact, within Apache Subversion, a committer can be added by any *singular* > PMC member, no vote required (but their resulting commit rights are > limited). How does that interact/co-exist with UCB? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux > > wrote: > >> Who will update the https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html > page?* > > > > I've done that, it no

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > ...The ambiguity of voting.html has long irritated me and it was on my > own internal list of policies to clarify. I figured I would tackle it > later because it is so fundamental, but perhaps it will force itself > onto the agenda sooner.

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux > wrote: >> Who will update the https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html page?* > > I've done that, it now says "In general, committer elections are > majority approval votes, as

Re: Veto! Veto?

No worries. Just helping to get to the clearest ASF message. :-) Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Bertrand Delacre

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >... Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto... > then be removed from http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html?... Of course, tunnel vision at work here ;-) I have removed it now, thanks for noticing! -Bertrand

Re: Veto! Veto?

Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be prepared to defend it. Other members can attempt to encourage them to change.' then be removed from http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & S

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, jan i wrote: > ...https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html leaves it totally open: > Procedural Votes or Opinion Polls > *TBS* ... The beginning of that page gives good info on procedural votes, so I have removed this section for now. If someone wants to fl

Re: Veto! Veto?

On 24 March 2015 at 10:43, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux > wrote: > > Who will update the https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html > page?* > > I've done that, it now says "In general, committer elections are > majority approval votes, as de

Re: Veto! Veto?

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Who will update the https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html page?* I've done that, it now says "In general, committer elections are majority approval votes, as described on the Apache Voting Process page" with a link. -Bertrand

Re: Veto! Veto?

Who will update the https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html page?* This line A positive result is achieved by Consensus Approval i.e. at least 3 +1 votes and no vetoes. I could be wrong but I don't think I can... (not a member) Thanks Jacques Le 24/03/2015 10:11, Pierre Smits a éc

Re: Veto! Veto?

Now that we have that cleared up, we can all go back to our projects and contribute the good stuff to our works. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Mar 24, 2

Re: Veto! Veto?

Having reread the earlier postings I summarise what has been said it as this: - No vetoes are allowed, when it comes down to procedural issues (electing persons into functions, e.g. committer, PMC Member, PMC Chair, etc). - As stated by Bertrand in his remark that 'A positive resul