mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2018 05:24:05 GMT
Also from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html there is no
mention of the word "privileges", maybe "right" is a better term.

I feel there is some wisdom in choose not to emphasize the entitlements
being given in the role. After all, the PMC/committership is given by the
community, and the main job of PMC/committer is to use the power serve the
community well. And we should choose wisely as our actions have
consequences, and the community is watching

Tianqi

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Tianqi Chen <tqchen@apache.org> wrote:

> As far as I recall from what Jim said
>
> "The ASF strives for consensus, and votes and voting are used, primarily,
> to gauge that. It's not used to divide a community; it's used to UNITE it.
> Voting is used when collaboration and consensus building *FAILS*. It should
> be rare."
>
> In this context, we all agree that when a veto vote occurs everyone should
> respect it and not kick a dead horse.  On the other hand, the
> PMC/committers should be cautious when using this power, as the community
> should always encourage reach consensus via reasonable technical discussion
> first.
>
> As with all the ML models, every guideline can be interpreted in an
> adversarial fashion but I hope we can have a goodwill to build toward a
> positive sum collaboration.
>
> Tianqi
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:01 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The committer/PMC privileges is derived from
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
>>
>> The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote
>> is
>> against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect
>> those who differ with the vote to take that as feedback, if there are
>> corrections to be made in the understanding, they respectfully clarify
>> that
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> I agree with Chris, we have seen in the past where discussions have gone
>> on
>> and on for a long time when there were disagreements until people gave up,
>> This leads to frustration and less participation by members - this is also
>> an ultimate productivity killer. You can see why some of the discuss
>> threads go quiet and die.
>>
>> I am all for discussion and reaching consensus but at some point one must
>> realize its just kicking a dead horse and turns into an endurance contest
>> rather than a discussion. We should be careful on the expectations we set
>> in regard to how we reach consensus.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:18 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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