cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <>
Subject Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2013 21:23:41 GMT
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
<> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> to be our PMC chair.
> Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
> Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5).  In the
> thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
> to reconsider this position.
> I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
> the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own.  I
> believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
> approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
> I'm proposing the following change:
>   2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
>   recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
>   See for specifics. The
>   decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
>   2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
>   recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
>   This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
>   discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
>   candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
>   board.
> This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions.  If we
> don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
> bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
> Thoughts?
> -chip
> [1]

So here are my thoughts:

1. Chair is appointed by the board, generally upon recommendation of the PMC.
2. There is a high likelihood that we'll continue to grow and might at
some point have contention for the Chair, even if it is friendly.
Discussing people (IMO) should not happen in public. There's a reason
we already do that for committers in private. Think of some of those
conversations that we've already had that simply have no place in
private. And I know your proposal calls for discussion in private, and
vote in public but here's the thing:

The decision is one for the PMC to make.
You're effectively 'voting' by nominating someone and pushing them
forward - which means the 'vote' will be more of voting theatre than a
real vote, and really more of a ratification of the decision made in
private. Additionally, only votes by the (P)PMC are binding, and
unlike technical discussions, it would be bad form to discuss people
in public. So I am personally struggling to see the benefit afforded
by 'voting' in public. You can disagree, but if there is dissent it
being public would potentially be deleterious to the person it is said

I can see doing away with STV (or only resorting to it if clear
consensus isn't achieved).


View raw message