On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
>> site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
>> reflects this discu
Hey Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC per
Hi Dave,
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:38 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
>
>On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) w
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13616948#comment-13616948
]
Jordan Zimmerman edited comment on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28 at 3/29/13 1:24 AM:
--
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13616948#comment-13616948
]
Jordan Zimmerman commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28:
---
FYI - Apa
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
> site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
> reflects this discussion? Perhaps we could then lazily converge upon that?
Patch b
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
> IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
> monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
> board.
"If your st
Chris,
Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
board. If you want to change minds about this, you might need to come up
with
I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. That
is why the IPMC submits a board report.
That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
stated he wants to address the specific
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hey Ross,
>
>
I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>> legally
responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
>>> it
with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
reflects this discussion? Perhaps we could then lazily converge upon that?
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> This sounds like a vote to support the status quo, which isn't
> something we normally do.
The original proposal was limited to VOTEs on personnel issues (misspelled as
"personal"). Has that changed? I hope not.
One of the downsides of re
Thanks for your comments,
Inline, I provide some explanations and ask for guidance on some topics.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:59 , sebb wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback,
>>
>> I replied inline.
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
>>
>>>
Yes your logic is flawed- what you are actually
arguing for is majority voting not consensus voting,
and bringing the criterion down from 100% to
75% only helps mitigate your concerns.
As Doug points out, votes are structured away
from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
continue on with previ
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate
> you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs support - a
> vote on letting ant stay on. That sounds like you're being nice, but
> in fact you're being clever, becau
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, ant elder wrote:
> ...With this new supermajority approach you'd need 75% or more of voters
> to agree with you to get me gone.
>
> Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate
> you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs suppor
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> No more so than they already had.
>
It does Joe, let me give you a more clear example.
Lets imagine i've done something that you deem shows i'm a terrible
incubator mentor, and its not the first time.
There's a big debate within the PMC,
Hey Ross,
>> >I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>legally
>> >responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
>>it
>> >with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
>>
>> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
>>
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 28 Mar 2013 14:04, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Ross,
>
> On 3/27/13 11:33 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>
> >On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:1
No more so than they already had.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
> a lot of control the outcome.
>
> ...ant
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer
> wrote:
>> Waah. Lo
Hi Ross,
On 3/27/13 11:33 AM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
>> > model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
>> >
>>
>> ..
No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
a lot of control the outcome.
...ant
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
> of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
> Please s
Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
you talking to yourself.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder wro
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
> with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
> consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
> time. Our goal he
It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
time. Our goal here is to achieve consensus, not to hold votes. So, I'm
going to tre
On 28 March 2013 07:40, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>>> gradle/gradlew scripts to not have the ASL header becaus
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> I think it should be 3/4 majority.
>>
>> I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
>>
+1 (binding)
Tommaso
2013/3/28 Olivier Lamy
> +1 (binding)
>
> 2013/3/26 Christian Grobmeier :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
> > the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
> >
> > A few releases were made and the status
+1 (binding)
2013/3/26 Christian Grobmeier :
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
> the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
>
> A few releases were made and the status page has been completed:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/o
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>> I think it should be 3/4 majority.
>
> I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
> Moving to simple majority seems too radical...
+1 on requiring 3/4 m
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
>>> On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>> gradle/gradlew scripts to not have the ASL header because this is generated
>> code.
>>
>> According to th
31 matches
Mail list logo
