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: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:13:27 GMT
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:17 AM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
> >
> > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
>
>
> A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
> outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
>


Not so much. Votes at Apache are often used to memorialized consensus in a
highly searchable fashion. It helps to make sure that people are on the
same page.

Any -1s here would be a major surprise, but, precisely because they would
be a surprise, it would be important to make sure that there is a moment
that they could be brought out.

You are right that a vote that has consensus already established should
have the expected outcome, unless the consensus was, say, the result of
loud voices drowning out shy voices.

> But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in
> > the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
>
> That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
> their vote to depart.
>

That established half of the consensus. The IPMC documented the other half.


> > Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a
> mentor
> > called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
>
>
> Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
>

I was watching and I didn't see any bullying. Did you? Were you even
watching the process in detail?


>
> Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
> should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".
> That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of disrespect
> for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote
> to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of communities.
> It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and
> "bureaucracy" to pretend so.
>

No, that isn't what this vote is saying. This vote is *confirming* that
nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the
git repos being transferred.

Why do they ask at weddings if there is anybody who might bring any reason
for the wedding to not go forward? It isn't that they *expect* anybody to
bring something up. Instead, the tradition is there to record community
consensus. It used to have a very serious importance when communities were
smaller like Apache is now.

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