incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:45:48 GMT
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v <florisv59@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
>>> stiff done.
>>
>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how many
>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you get
>> the point) the project to vote.
>
> +1
>
> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
> really discussing to leave out the vote?
>
> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
> with this vote too!
>

Think of it this way:  With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can
veto a proposal.  With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of
voters approve.  So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach.  It is the
stricter requirement.

So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a
redundant vote?

I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds.  What precedent does
this set?  For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal
to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that
it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus
(lack of veto)?  Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer
to veto a proposal?

IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:

1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers, etc.

2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
alternatives

I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus.  If
we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?

-Rob

Mime
View raw message