mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2018 01:18:42 GMT
well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to keep
discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to push,
right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the “bad
guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could be
abused.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
> have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
> on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
> discussion was wrapped up.
>
> - Carin
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that
> after
> > a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying
> to
> > just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
> > before, actually.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
> > > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we
> > should
> > > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try
> > to
> > > agree to start a nuclear war.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tqchen@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Carin:
> > >>     Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down
> > the
> > >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
> > >>
> > >>    - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus
> > >> with
> > >> discussion when possible."
> > >>
> > >>    Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
> > >> rights.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >> Tianqi
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > This vote is to adopt the document
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > >> > to replace the current document
> > >> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > >> >
> > >> > The dev discussion thread is here
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > >> >
> > >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >> >
> > >> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > >> unless
> > >> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > >> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless
> > >> of
> > >> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
> > too
> > >> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > >> typically
> > >> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
for a
> > >> > modifying factor.)
> > >> >
> > >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Carin
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

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