incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:15:30 GMT

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM, John D. Ament <> wrote:
> 1. 172 PPMC members is a lot (I'm assuming you mean PPMC) (IPMC is defined
> here:

No, I actually mean the IPMC:


>  As far as I know, PPMC members is a superset of committers.  Even
> here,
> 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:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message