incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:17:48 GMT
No more so than they already had.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:

> No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
> a lot of control the outcome.
> 
>   ...ant
> 
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Waah.  Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
>> of the old 100%.  It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
>> Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
>> self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
>> you talking to yourself.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
>>> <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
>>>> with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
>>>> consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
>>>> time. Our goal here is to achieve consensus, not to hold votes. So, I'm
>>>> going to treat this as a lazy consensus issues. I'm going to watch this
>>>> thread for an additional 72 hours. If anyone objects to this consensus,
>>>> send along a brief summary of your objection with a -1. If there are, in
>>>> fact, substantive objections, I'll organize a separate vote process to
>>>> resolve this. Please do not debate objections here, we'll do that later if
>>>> we have to. Everyone's had a fair opportunity to state their opinion, so
>>>> the only thing we're doing now is ensuring that no one is harboring a
>>>> serious objection that I have somehow overlooked. Acquiescing in this
>>>> process does not prejudice the discussion of changing the PMC.
>>> 
>>> I'd prefer we stick with consensus but not enough to vote against this.
>>> 
>>> However as no one has mentioned this I do think its worth pointing out
>>> that when using supermajority instead of consensus or simple majority
>>> then the phrasing of the vote becomes important.
>>> 
>>> Eg. Say 16 people participate in a vote then:
>>> "Throw the guy out" needs 5 -1s to stop it happening
>>> "Let the guy stay" needs 12 +1s to make it happen.
>>> 
>>>  ...ant
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

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


Mime
View raw message