Hi,
I also think any negative votes -1 are veto for committer and PMC.
Assigning roles in a community is a very sensitive subject so allowing veto
seems natural for me, but playing democracy is dangerous. We still have for
example -0.9 vote that means not a veto but disagreement.
Sincerely,
Dmitr
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:34 PM wrote:
> ...For instance [1] which states:
> "For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding new
> members to the PMC.” ...
Interesting, I missed that indeed, I'll start a discussion on our
members@ list to see what people think.
Thanks for
Hi,
For instance [1] which states:
"For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding new
members to the PMC.”
Not to single an individual out but that was the shortest concise statement I
could fine. (But given it was 2013 their views may of changed since then).
Justin
1.
HI,
> That's not correct, its not "no -1s" - quoting [2]:
>
>> Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at
>> least three
>> binding +1 votes and no vetos.
>
> It says "no vetos", not "no -1s"
>
> And as per [0] vetoes only apply to code changes, so that definiti
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:35 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> I think some of this is confusion between what consensus means and
> consensus voting mean (or more correctly consensus approval) [2] (i.e. 3+1s
> and no -1’s.)
That's not correct, its not "no -1s" - quoting [2]:
> Consensus approval'
Hi,
> To me the ultimate reference is
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html - decisions are made by
> consensus (*) which can be expressed by a majority vote with a least
> three +1s, and vetoes are only valid for code changes.
That page has a few issues IMO, for starters it not clear w
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:39 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...From my reading of policy and many many discussions on mailing lists, it
> seem
> that consensus approval not majority approval is the standard way...
To me the ultimate reference is
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html - dec
Hi,
> I'm in favor of removing that clause and operating in the standard way with
> majority votes.
From my reading of policy and many many discussions on mailing lists, it seem
that consensus approval not majority approval is the standard way. Although
there is some confusion on this, and dif
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:41 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> ..."Individuals may be nominated to join the IPMC after a vote which passes
> with more than 3/4 of those voting.”...
I didn't remember the discussion that led to that, and looking at it
again I don't think it solves an actual problem - i
Hi,
I was looking at the IPMC policy on addd new IPMC members [1] and noticed
something odd it states:
"Individuals may be nominated to join the IPMC after a vote which passes with
more than 3/4 of those voting.”
Anyone know the history of this? It seem to come from this thread [2]. That
threa
10 matches
Mail list logo
