incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:29:16 GMT

My opinion only...

1. 172 PPMC members is a lot (I'm assuming you mean PPMC) (IPMC is defined
 As far as I know, PPMC members is a superset of committers.  Even
PPMC votes and Committer votes are separate: . As it notes, it should be a
goal to have all committers particular in the PPMC.  Were all of this
committers votes in separately?

I think though in order to show your merit you need to make it up as a
committer first, bringing in features/bug fixes.  Since this is a software
community it's essentially the easiest way to show your merits.

2. I believe most if not all follow the weighted vote approach.  One -1
doesn't turn something down, unless that was the only vote.  Based on this,
if someone rarely participates wouldn't their vote hold less weight (unless
they made a compelling argument that swayed others to vote -1).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier <>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."
> Joe brought this up before around 14 months:
> We have not found a consens, but one might highlight Roy Fieldings e-mail:
> 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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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