Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgBn-R2g7BnEc+nXZb2msmBpwCkm30QDLfp7LF0UyFd48w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPFNckiJy6TM5tYCfN7mScH6h0v_eaR7ws5QMfTEGaoo+DoktQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJO+UbuVEwUCCCZBTy_FWJ6cOLoxoy23U5T+XG+=214Vk8w3MQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJO+UbupiAUHW24FqD+7AtESkNK=9i9M=4YiENL28jGr6cBmtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJm9r5=2PxaoeEoETRsW=NTBzSxWv-g2QORAJ5QjQG+L-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<013D1292-24A2-4339-89E9-F44F55C6AA1C@gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJnkd=HpYKoADBUqLyp4WGfcFB7OuYQsqm8QaaoLKR1Z5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALhtWkfBNYYoyPN6BnzUJ+df9sd1VwjQk7GB7Q2wRNPv2xDHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgC1+55SMd9NUtO7=1vUatSR-2ZNeXdVpKt==JsPgNuVdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPFNckgn8hoNBPoCoQHWrcPVp8jsU=eSP5TdK5LaK3O+9ZtC9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKQbXgBn-R2g7BnEc+nXZb2msmBpwCkm30QDLfp7LF0UyFd48w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:56:36 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALhtWkfRwR9vS_sksTinf0ZOCEp7CgE7JSrQ6ZHdKXid0XGJJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc9840a8a63d04d8ef1c5e

--047d7bdc9840a8a63d04d8ef1c5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The first thing I'd like to do, coordination-wise, is to call a vote on the
proposal to decide things by majority. I think that this would help with
some of the problems we hit, and we can meanwhile continue to discuss
larger structural changes.


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:

> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 27 Mar 2013 20:12, "Christian Grobmeier" <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
> > <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > > Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent to the one item in the
> above
> > > governance structure that is missing today. That is why shouldn't it
> have
> > > an equivalent of "ASF Members elect a board". It would something like
> IPMC
> > > elect 9-15 Shepherds. These Shepherds are responsible for ensuring that
> the
> > > IPMC membership is heard and that decisions are made for the good of
> the
> > > IPMC. They approve membership of the IPMC, they approve project
> > > entry/graduation/retirement but, and this is critical, they report to
> the
> > > IPMC. Most of the time their role is one of delegation to the PPMCs,
> > > occasionally their role is to break a deadlock by listening to the IPMC
> and
> > > making the best decision it can.
> >
> > it sounds a little bit as the Shepherds would be the "true" PMC of the
> IPMC.
>
> No. The IPMC would be the true IPMC, but they elect a representative body
> to make the IPMC function more efficiently. That body remains answerable to
> the IPMC. This is important because the mentors should be the ones making
> recommendations about graduation, report approval etc. More importantly
> only PMC members have binding votes on releases. The shepherds delegate all
> this to the PPMC (and its mentors). The shepherds only act to ensure the
> PPMC is capable, unhindered and healthy.
>
> >
> > Also if we follow this, Shepherds doesn't sound so nice. Actually it
> > is a kind of Board.
>
> Yes it is. I avoided new names to prevent the false impression that this is
> adding new layers. The Shepherds already do almost everything I'm
> suggesting. The only addition is for them to be the ones who break
> consensus deadlocks. Why them? Because their role means they have more
> visibility into the breadth of the Incubator than many IPMC members.
>
> > I don't think a chair should act with authority.
>
> Sometimes it is necessary, but I agree that it should be very rare. The
> problem with the IPMC is that it is needed too frequently. My proposal, as
> you observe, provides a representative group, answerable to the IPMC, to
> build consensus on these occasions.
>
>
>
>
> > I am still not convinced if we need another
> > layer of people - or if we just minimize the IPMC and give Mentors (=
> > Committers) that binding vote.
>
> I have no doubt that my proposal is imperfect, let's find the holes and see
> if they are pluggable.
>
> Chris' model is similar in some ways as has been observed. I'm yet to see
> how the scale problem will be solved, but maybe I'm remembering the
> proposal incorrectly,
>
> In think a fundamental difference between Chris' radical model and mine is
> revolution vs evolution. Personally I think the current IPMC model works
> well 98% of the time, so evolution is appropriate,
>
>
> >
> > > Just a thought.... of course, my solution is as flawed as anyone elses
> and
> > > I look to the IPMC Chair to find the "good enough" solution that will
> allow
> > > us to move on (sorry Benson).
> >
> > I look to all IPMC members.
>
> I meant Benson should coordinate, not dictate :-)
>
> Thanks for your useful critique.
>
> Ross
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Christian
> >
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 March 2013 11:55, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I suppose that as chair I ought to be heard from here. I've been off
> for
> > >> Passover for a bit.
> > >>
> > >> In my view, the IPMC manifests two problems. I'd like to label them as
> > >> 'operational' and 'decision-making'. This thread is about
> decision-making,
> > >> but with some people seeing using terms like 'disfunctional', I think
> it's
> > >> important to keep 'function' in context.
> > >>
> > >> Operationally, we 'started' 1.3 years ago with an acute problem of
> > >> under-supervised and/or 'malingering' podlings. Under Jukka's
> leadership,
> > >> we made a series of incremental changes that have considerably
> improved the
> > >> situation. On the other hand, the recent influx of many new podlings
> > >> worries me, because 'improved' is not the same as 'fixed'. And I'm not
> > >> entirely sure that 'fixed' is possible. I'd like to see us find more
> > >> incremental changes that help further, and I'd like them to scale via
> some
> > >> mechanism other than my own personal time. I see this as a reason to
> put
> > >> more thought into shepherds and champions. But I don't see this
> situation
> > >> as 'disfunctional'.
> > >>
> > >> On the decision-making front, recent phenomena have demonstrated to me
> that
> > >> this group is not succeeding in applying consensus process to decision
> > >> making. I could write five paragraphs on what that process is and what
> it
> > >> requires, but I'm not inclined to. I support the proposal here to
> apply
> > >> majority rules to IPMC membership. When consensus process fails here,
> we
> > >> have endless email threads. Many of us find these stressful,
> > >> time-consuming, and disheartening.
> > >>
> > >> Under the proposal at hand, we'd still DISCUSS, and I'd hope that we
> would
> > >> all try to be thoughtful and constructive and look for ways to agree.
> > >> However, after a certain amount of discussion, there would be a vote,
> and
> > >> that would be that.
> > >>
> > >> If this 'works' -- if people here find that it strikes a good balance
> > >> between seeking consensus and limiting time and stress, we're good.
> > >>
> > >> It might not work. Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this
> large,
> > >> diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent
> with
> > >> Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings. In which case someone
> > >> might want to dust off the proposals from 1.3 years ago that offered
> more
> > >> or less radical alternatives. I'm personally not ready to go there
> yet.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > >> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Mclean <
> justinmclean@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > ...As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in
> > >> order
> > >> > to become
> > >> > > a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of
> > >> > [1])...
> > >> >
> > >> > you don't - Apache members can become IPMC members just by asking,
> but
> > >> > others can also be elected as incubator PMC members. We do have some
> > >> > such mentors currently.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Bertrand
> > >> >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > > Programme Leader (Open Development)
> > > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.grobmeier.de
> > https://www.timeandbill.de
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>

--047d7bdc9840a8a63d04d8ef1c5e--