You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Joseph Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2017/04/04 03:02:56 UTC
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you believed something like that were happening in a project you were working on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>
> Well, isn't that a weak argument, since said company already have majority
> and with vetoes can also block to loose such majority. If this happens, I
> would assume that someone in the PMC would bring it to Board's attention to
> look into the matter, as the only course of action against a malevolent
> company taking control of a project, no matter which voting system you
> apply.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joseph Schaefer <
> joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that it
>> can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can
>> increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the
>> minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power. Yes
>> this has come up in the past.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> on https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
>> it
>>> describes the process of bringing in a new committer for a "typical
>>> project".
>>>
>>> But in the "Discussion" it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it really
>>> "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers? I can't recall
>>> seeing that anywhere, not saying it is incorrect, but asking whether it
>>> really is "typical".
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should provide links to a handful of well-known project's
>>> processes, to both give a template for projects to work with as well as
>>> different approaches.
>>>
>>> Anyone has any opinion on this matter?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
I tried to stay away from this thread. Oh, well...
Ted, congrats!
On 04/04/2017 08:18 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Niclas,
>
> I never presented an argument in favor of *using* a veto. I presented an
> argument in favor of *having* a veto to potentially use.
That was well understood.
>
> The possibility of a veto encourages consensus building before the decision
> is recorded.
This is also understood, but it sounds to me that you are making Niclas'
point.
>
> I personally think that vetoes should almost never happen because any
> veto-worthy issue is brought out and resolved in discussion ahead of time.
Because of that, votes that may take place never do, because people
indicate via back channels what their vote will be (tactic I see even at
board level from time to time) and then the vote never takes place and
discussion and the status quo, well, continue. Nothing to report, all good.
Vetoes remove one of the few leverages the minority has, that's my
understanding of what Niclas meant.
That said, the majority has so many other ways to abuse of the minority,
that in my experience the only sane way is to just give up. Which most
do actually, sadly.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But Ted, how does the minority regain the "minority's voice heard" simply
>> by veto of new members? If they place unreasonable vetoes and hope that
>> over time the majority will "evaporate" seems unproductive as well.
>>
>> Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
>> presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
>> leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
>> project.
>>
>> The raised problem of community disharmony is not served with vetoes,
>> AFAICT.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2017 14:06, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience.
>>
>> It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited
>> experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far
>> better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a
>> majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard
>> when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty
>> closely.
>>
>> His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to
>> match mine quite closely.
>>
>> I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I
>> certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and
>> Joe's statement is pretty different.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That borders on FUD.
>>>
>>> Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>
>>>> Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
>>>> believed something like that were happening in a project you were
>> working
>>>> on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Joseph Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
+1 Ted. While I have never personally felt the need to issue a veto regarding a personnel promotion, I have seen others use it, and have on balance agreed with those decisions, including for the exact situation I mentioned.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Niclas,
>
> I never presented an argument in favor of *using* a veto. I presented an
> argument in favor of *having* a veto to potentially use.
>
> The possibility of a veto encourages consensus building before the decision
> is recorded.
>
> I personally think that vetoes should almost never happen because any
> veto-worthy issue is brought out and resolved in discussion ahead of time.
>
>
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But Ted, how does the minority regain the "minority's voice heard" simply
>> by veto of new members? If they place unreasonable vetoes and hope that
>> over time the majority will "evaporate" seems unproductive as well.
>>
>> Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
>> presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
>> leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
>> project.
>>
>> The raised problem of community disharmony is not served with vetoes,
>> AFAICT.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2017 14:06, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience.
>>
>> It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited
>> experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far
>> better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a
>> majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard
>> when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty
>> closely.
>>
>> His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to
>> match mine quite closely.
>>
>> I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I
>> certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and
>> Joe's statement is pretty different.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That borders on FUD.
>>>
>>> Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
>>> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>
>>>> Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
>>>> believed something like that were happening in a project you were
>> working
>>>> on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Niclas,
I never presented an argument in favor of *using* a veto. I presented an
argument in favor of *having* a veto to potentially use.
The possibility of a veto encourages consensus building before the decision
is recorded.
I personally think that vetoes should almost never happen because any
veto-worthy issue is brought out and resolved in discussion ahead of time.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But Ted, how does the minority regain the "minority's voice heard" simply
> by veto of new members? If they place unreasonable vetoes and hope that
> over time the majority will "evaporate" seems unproductive as well.
>
> Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
> presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
> leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
> project.
>
> The raised problem of community disharmony is not served with vetoes,
> AFAICT.
>
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2017 14:06, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience.
>
> It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited
> experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far
> better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a
> majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard
> when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty
> closely.
>
> His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to
> match mine quite closely.
>
> I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I
> certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and
> Joe's statement is pretty different.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That borders on FUD.
> >
> > Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
> > <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> >
> > > Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
> > > believed something like that were happening in a project you were
> working
> > > on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
> >
> >
>
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Running to the board every time there is a lack of consensus about a candidate is not appropriate governance at Apache. The fact that PMC members are afforded certain RIGHTS, including the right to stop the train on a personnel promotion, is an important aspect of maintaining proper checks and balances within the project itself.
Not to belabor the whole question about the role of diversity in this org, the fact is that once a PMC reaches a size significantly greater than the original crop of developers, conflict happens. Sometimes it means a single person is not sufficiently aligned with the rest of the team in terms of core values and principles about personnel promotions, and sometimes the group is mired in groupthink and the sole voice of reason can effectively block bad decisions from happening to the project. Either way, diversity happens, and it's not always universally positive for the collective wellbeing of the group. At least not in the short run.
But most of the time, it's resolvable to the satisfaction of everyone in the project. I've never seen a veto issued as a permanent objection to a candidate, 99% of the time the vetoer is simply saying "not yet, IMO".And that "not yet" opinion can stand according to the bylaws of the larger projects all of whom have found constructive ways of restoring the group to consensus decisions about personnel over the full spectrum of time.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017, 3:59:05 PM EDT, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:That's reassuring, but how does that relate to defaulting to vetoes for
personnel?
Your statement about Board intervening could be said for Joe's/Ted's claim
about "letting the minority be heard" as well... and doesn't support or
undermine the use of vetoes for personnel.
Cheers
On Apr 5, 2017 07:49, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
> > presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
> > leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
> > project.
>
> If a personnel vote is contended, and it doesn't show up in a Board
> report, the PMC Chair is not upholding their responsibilities and
> should be sacked. But even if it does get omitted, at least one
> Director is probably scanning each project's private list once per
> quarter and will likely flag the issue.
>
> Contended personnel votes are not common. The Board has enough
> bandwidth to review them and curtail egregious abuse.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
That's reassuring, but how does that relate to defaulting to vetoes for
personnel?
Your statement about Board intervening could be said for Joe's/Ted's claim
about "letting the minority be heard" as well... and doesn't support or
undermine the use of vetoes for personnel.
Cheers
On Apr 5, 2017 07:49, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
> > presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
> > leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
> > project.
>
> If a personnel vote is contended, and it doesn't show up in a Board
> report, the PMC Chair is not upholding their responsibilities and
> should be sacked. But even if it does get omitted, at least one
> Director is probably scanning each project's private list once per
> quarter and will likely flag the issue.
>
> Contended personnel votes are not common. The Board has enough
> bandwidth to review them and curtail egregious abuse.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
> presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
> leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
> project.
If a personnel vote is contended, and it doesn't show up in a Board
report, the PMC Chair is not upholding their responsibilities and
should be sacked. But even if it does get omitted, at least one
Director is probably scanning each project's private list once per
quarter and will likely flag the issue.
Contended personnel votes are not common. The Board has enough
bandwidth to review them and curtail egregious abuse.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com>.
But Ted, how does the minority regain the "minority's voice heard" simply
by veto of new members? If they place unreasonable vetoes and hope that
over time the majority will "evaporate" seems unproductive as well.
Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
project.
The raised problem of community disharmony is not served with vetoes,
AFAICT.
On Apr 4, 2017 14:06, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience.
It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited
experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far
better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a
majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard
when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty
closely.
His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to
match mine quite closely.
I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I
certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and
Joe's statement is pretty different.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That borders on FUD.
>
> Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>
> > Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
> > believed something like that were happening in a project you were
working
> > on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
>
>
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience.
It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited
experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far
better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a
majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard
when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty
closely.
His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to
match mine quite closely.
I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I
certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and
Joe's statement is pretty different.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That borders on FUD.
>
> Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>
> > Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
> > believed something like that were happening in a project you were working
> > on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
>
>
Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
That borders on FUD.
Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
<jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
> believed something like that were happening in a project you were working
> on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well, isn't that a weak argument, since said company already have
> majority
> > and with vetoes can also block to loose such majority. If this happens, I
> > would assume that someone in the PMC would bring it to Board's attention
> to
> > look into the matter, as the only course of action against a malevolent
> > company taking control of a project, no matter which voting system you
> > apply.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joseph Schaefer <
> > joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that
> it
> >> can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can
> >> increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the
> >> minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power.
> Yes
> >> this has come up in the past.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> on
> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> >> it
> >>> describes the process of bringing in a new committer for a "typical
> >>> project".
> >>>
> >>> But in the "Discussion" it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it
> really
> >>> "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers? I can't recall
> >>> seeing that anywhere, not saying it is incorrect, but asking whether it
> >>> really is "typical".
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps we should provide links to a handful of well-known project's
> >>> processes, to both give a template for projects to work with as well as
> >>> different approaches.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone has any opinion on this matter?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> --
> >>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> >>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
> --
Pierre Smits
ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services
OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/