Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 317DBFE8E for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51506 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2013 20:29:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 51215 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2013 20:29:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 51203 invoked by uid 99); 23 Mar 2013 20:29:42 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:29:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of john.d.ament@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.169] (HELO mail-ob0-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:29:37 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id oi10so3631945obb.28 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:29:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Mhtul2oSFnO/tUf2CKH/GZhEU+2ie4h8M8HUDDzzUpM=; b=0lH5xyKNCOeiSG6vRPTRc8ZSHZLhgMzNwmG+4oGmsnoPgdplWwMeQtUgS8qDB9Ntq9 XETE06P2si87Y7vjVDzVvq603VnS+vkdvjM64crPd+IX3iIlaKy501sIH8lTORf9GAV/ pZJtpS6yotxwDTeuDp5e7renFO2jr+dqFbKmhwuwcGuhDch5bzH+GBRK3G48G1txsKCw fa+wOKx7ckxWSXbX56YwzvhLTY/jQyN4JY/ApQrazAycts40JxVC9V5JbsQEnsV16qHc aX41A6VRSe7e0WWxtDj8zLw/3yW8JTegHEtG50fy8aDJY1zTxx02OLVJfmPQY1HaKcJ1 Kegw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.31.193 with SMTP id c1mr6048254oei.63.1364070556587; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.192.9 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:29:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:29:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus From: "John D. Ament" To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f923cd2f9600104d89d6cd4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8f923cd2f9600104d89d6cd4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Christian My opinion only... 1. 172 PPMC members is a lot (I'm assuming you mean PPMC) (IPMC is defined here: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html). As far as I know, PPMC members is a superset of committers. Even here, PPMC votes and Committer votes are separate: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html . 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." > 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 > > --e89a8f923cd2f9600104d89d6cd4--