commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 23:21:30 GMT
James,

You succeeded in creating a second thread.

It is the first thread that had a reverted subject line.  Ironically, it
was one of your posts that reverted the subject line ... likely related to
the confusion you had in the first place with gmail.

Check the archives.  They show the subject lines.


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM, James Carman
<james@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:

> There were two threads.  As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
> threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
> for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is
used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> >  Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> >  The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> > > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3EfromwhichI
quote below:
> > >
> > > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> > > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > > agree).
> > >
> > > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> > HTTP
> > > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > > other set of bylaws."
> > > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> > > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means
> everyone
> > > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> > be
> > > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> > >
> > > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> > says
> > > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on
> > the
> > > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or
> > a
> > > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> > > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > > >
> > > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > > > than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > > regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> > > > votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> > > > the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> > > > lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> > > >
> > > > I got this information from:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > > >
> > > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > > any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> > > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> > > > your concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I
see
> it
> > > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1s
> > > >>> James Carman
> > > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > >>> Matt Benson
> > > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > > >>> Gary Gregory
> > > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > > >>> Oliver Heger
> > > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -1s
> > > >>> Mark Thomas
> > > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0.5
> > > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0
> > > >>> Ralph Goers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -0
> > > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.
>  We
> > > >>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page
> for
> > > >>> that.
> > > >>
> > > >> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that
is
> > > >> clearly not the c
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message