incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:17:57 GMT
On 1/31/12 3:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr.<wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>>
>> On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>>   From: William A. Rowe Jr.<wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>>>>   To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>   Cc:
>>>>   Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
>>>>   Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>>>>
>>>>   On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>>    On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr."
>>>>   <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>  wrote:
>>>>>>    On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>>>    It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>>>>>>>    lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having
>> veto
>>>>>>>    authority over personnel matters makes little sense on
>> this
>>>>>>>    PMC.  Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that
>> personnel
>>>>>>>    votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes
>> allowed.
>>>>>>    -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The argument is very simple, you don't allow a simple
>> majority to
>>>>>>    tyrannize the minority.  So the ASF has long held a simple
>> standard
>>>>>>    of consensus on all committee additions and subtractions.
>> Some
>>>>>>    majority might be irked at [insert name here]'s
>> [actions|inaction|
>>>>>>    comments|silence] but that was never grounds to remove a
>> committee
>>>>>>    member.  If you want to propose some supermajority metric
>> other than
>>>>>>    "unanimous", that could work (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4 in
>> agreement
>>>>>    In your plan then a -1 is really a -2 or -3?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Sounds like a filibuster...
>>>>   No, I'm -1 to this proposal.  I'd support his proposal if it
>> were
>>>>   modified to provide for a measurable super-majority consensus.
>>>   Define supermajority in a way that isn't patently absurd and perhaps
>>>   I'll consider amending it.
>> 2/3.  3/4.  Take your pick.  I'd argue on the high end.  Consider that
>> to defeat a 3/4 supermajority consisting of 9 votes requires more than
>> 2 people against.  This committee has an order of magnitude more voters.
>> Simple obstructionism is easy to deal with.
> Oh, so you want a supermajority in terms of those who have voted, not in
> terms of the membership of the IPMC?  Not unreasonable.  Let's see what
> others think.

I would easily +1 a proposal with a 3/4 majority of the *voters*.


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message