hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:47:38 GMT

+1 to Owen's suggestion.

Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates with the board on
behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair);
all the project decisions are driven by the PMC collectively. Given that,  one should not
expect vetoes at all in this vote.


On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:

> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
> board should be based off of lazy consensus.  That means that any PMC
> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
> confirmed by another PMC member.  I am fine with the proposal to use STV.
> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
> vetoes or not.  If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is valid
> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
> enough to influence any voting process we set up.  I don't care what
> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
> one that can handle one or more candidates.
> -- Bobby
> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with STV
>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when voting
>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems than
>> it solves.
>> -- Owen

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