river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [TALLY] [VOTE] drop JDK 5 compatibility
Date Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:34:20 GMT
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG <sim@qcg.nl> wrote:
> Assuming you used 'spelunk: to explore unknown territory' you need to
> explain this some more.
> What was done wrong? How could we have done this better?

Yes you have captured the intent of my metaphor, and no I really
didn't mean to criticize, and I probably forgot the start of the
entire thread.

As per remarks by others, majority voting is rarely an effective
technique at Apache. With the exception of some specific events with
legal implications (new committers, new PMC members, releases), the
'ground state' of decision making at Apache is the consensus process.
In the consensus process. I, um, wrote something about this:

Holding a formal vote as a way of discovering (e.g. spelunking,
humorously) whether a consensus exists is fine. My point, such as it
was, is that once you have a supply of -1 votes, you're really done.
It doesn't matter exactly how much time has passed, or whether you put
RESULTS in a subject line, or any of those things. You've learned that
there is no consensus for the proposal.

> To me it was a clear and unambigous procedure to put into writing what the
> individual preferences were.
> Whe have had long discussions, with very subtle issues, which did not bring
> us any further if we were going to drop one jdk or another.
> I've used the model i practice in a lot of meetings, we discuss pros and
> cons, give people time to form their definite position, and end with a vote.
> Apart from the missing legal status, which is not important to me, what can
> we do as a group to resolve the jdk issue?
> Gr. Sim
> On 11-02-11 03:51, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Votes like this, which are a way to spelunk consensus, have no legal
>> status and no set procedure. If the PMC had decided to make this
>> decision by majority vote (which would have been extremely unwise, but
>> whatever) then it would only have been fair to announce the length of
>> the voting period at the outset and tally up at the end.
>> In the case at hand, I think you've learned what you set out to learn,
>> and this message is a more than adequate terminus to the process.

View raw message