community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:43:24 GMT
Let me clarify that.  Each nomination receives comments from other members about their history
with the nominee.  Not all comments are positive, but those that are are effectively counted
as seconds for the nominee.

The actual vote is by simple majority however.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each
> nominee to achieve consensus...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
> 
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>>> 
>>> Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
>>> with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
>>> hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
>>> as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
>>> important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>> [orcmid]
>> 
>> I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed
>> (as opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of
>> consensus-seeking and community cultivation).
>> 
>> My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by
>> default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the
>> presence of Nays.  Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because
>> it admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative.  Note that lazy consensus
>> is a form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s;
>> here an objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an
>> if-no-objection proposal and objections are invited.
>> 
>> The only firm veto seems to be on commits.  And, of course, the 3 +1s
>> majority is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and
>> which cannot be vetoed).
>> 
>> The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice
>> without ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend.
>> The fact that a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths
>> as policy) is probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC
>> practice).
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org


Mime
View raw message