incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:24:57 GMT
One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a
larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring that
successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to some
condition on n and m.  Majority requires n > m, strict Apache consensus
requires n >= 3 and m == 0.  It is easy to imagine other conditions such as
n >= 4 and m <= 2 which still have some of the flavor of consensus in that
a minority can block a decision, but allow forward progress even with
constant naysayers or occasional random vetoes.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion
> on how we vote on nominated IPMC members.
>
> We had the case were one person was nominated and received three +1.
> Another voter had concerns an voted -1. The vote has been marked as
> failed, because no consensus could be found.
>
> Now this was my understanding and I was surprised that the vote failed:
>
> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated."
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Joe brought this up before around 14 months:
> http://s.apache.org/majorityinipmc
>
> We have not found a consens, but one might highlight Roy Fieldings e-mail:
> http://s.apache.org/royCommitterVeto
>
> I still think like Joe and feel that consensus should not apply in the
> IPMC. We are way to different to normal PMCs. As IPMC members we have
> no code which we can veto. Its all about accepting podlings,
> discussing rules and mentoring.
>
> We also have 172 IPMC members to date (according committer index).
> Most of the people are not seen often; we have many awol mentors.
> Currently becoming an IPMC member is necessary to become a Mentor. It
> always felt wrong to me. I think one should be able to become a Mentor
> and finally be able to join the IPMC and discuss rules, when he has
> shown merit.
>
> With an IPMC of that size it becomes more and more easy to get a -1.
>
> Personally I would like to see the IPMC separating IPMC-ship and
> Mentor-ship. I have proposed this already, but it seems nobody else
> except me wants that. So I am proposing now to reconsider Joes
> original proposal and change our community voting to a majority voting
> unless we restructure the IPMC.
>
> I am sorry to bring this lengthy discussion up again, but from the
> original thread I have learned a couple of other IPMC members are
> thinking similar on majority / consensus.
>
> I would also like to suggest that this time we finish the discussion
> with a vote.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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