hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Date Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:59:03 GMT
That sounds good to me.

On 11/15/12 8:44 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko" <shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:

>The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair.
>Or left for the board to choose.
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szetszwo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Owen's proposal sounds good in general.  There are slight variances of
>>STV.  I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting
>>(http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting).  We should add a link to
>>their wiki in our bylaws.
>> How about tiebreaker?  What if there are only two candidates and they
>>get exactly the same number of votes?
>> Tsz-Wo
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Robert Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com>
>> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <general@hadoop.apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
>> Vinod,
>> I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select
>> Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue.  That is why I said
>> I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
>> not."  I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
>> thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
>> --Bobby
>> On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli"
>> wrote:
>>>+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
>>>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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>>> it solves.
>>>>> -- Owen

View raw message