You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2018/11/06 07:41:00 UTC
Voting in new IPMC members
Hi,
I was looking at the IPMC policy on addd new IPMC members [1] and noticed something odd it states:
"Individuals may be nominated to join the IPMC after a vote which passes with more than 3/4 of those voting.”
Anyone know the history of this? It seem to come from this thread [2]. That thread is very long covers a wide amount ground, so you may want to scroll to the end, but it’s interesting to see the incubator faceless some of the some issues but has also changed a lot since then.
In practice it probably doesn’t matter given there’s so few votes and even fewer -1 votes, I’m just curious where where it come from and why it’s different from what most PMCs do.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://incubator.apache.org/policy/roles_and_responsibilities.html#incubator_project_management_committee_ipmc
2. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/108162cb65612eb12154ddf571822bbbe9795c750e1bcf2ba91a8c4c@1364068976@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I also think any negative votes -1 are veto for committer and PMC.
Assigning roles in a community is a very sensitive subject so allowing veto
seems natural for me, but playing democracy is dangerous. We still have for
example -0.9 vote that means not a veto but disagreement.
Sincerely,
Dmitry Pavlov
ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 12:31 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:34 PM <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > ...For instance [1] which states:
> > "For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding
> new members to the PMC.” ...
>
> Interesting, I missed that indeed, I'll start a discussion on our
> members@ list to see what people think.
>
> Thanks for being persistent in arguing ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
> > 1.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/406150947529308214f1ab80b42ed670a71df0537c1a860c1da2f82f@1380817899@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:34 PM <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> ...For instance [1] which states:
> "For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding new members to the PMC.” ...
Interesting, I missed that indeed, I'll start a discussion on our
members@ list to see what people think.
Thanks for being persistent in arguing ;-)
-Bertrand
> 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/406150947529308214f1ab80b42ed670a71df0537c1a860c1da2f82f@1380817899@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by ju...@classsoftware.com.
Hi,
For instance [1] which states:
"For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding new members to the PMC.”
Not to single an individual out but that was the shortest concise statement I could fine. (But given it was 2013 their views may of changed since then).
Justin
1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/406150947529308214f1ab80b42ed670a71df0537c1a860c1da2f82f@1380817899@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> That's not correct, its not "no -1s" - quoting [2]:
>
>> Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least three
>> binding +1 votes and no vetos.
>
> It says "no vetos", not "no -1s"
>
> And as per [0] vetoes only apply to code changes, so that definition
> of "consensus approval" cannot IMO apply to anything other than code
> changes.
If you read the thread I pointed to -1 are vetos on committer and PMC members, or rather many old ASF members think that is the case, I’m not sure what else I can say other than that. It would be good if this was clarified (and the documentation corrected) as I know it’s caused issues on a number of occasions.
Perhaps discuss/branch the board discussion on default guidelines to discuss this?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:35 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> I think some of this is confusion between what consensus means and
> consensus voting mean (or more correctly consensus approval) [2] (i.e. 3+1s and no -1’s.)
That's not correct, its not "no -1s" - quoting [2]:
> Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least three
> binding +1 votes and no vetos.
It says "no vetos", not "no -1s"
And as per [0] vetoes only apply to code changes, so that definition
of "consensus approval" cannot IMO apply to anything other than code
changes.
I am very attached to the "vetoes apply only to code changes" rule,
not willing to let that change in any way.
That's just my opinion but I think changing that would be a big
mistake as it allows for deadlocks.
Even though I'm also very attached to paying attention to all -1s,
*from a community point of view*, while recognizing that from a formal
point of view they are not vetoes if it's not about code changes.
-Bertrand
[0] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> To me the ultimate reference is
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html - decisions are made by
> consensus (*) which can be expressed by a majority vote with a least
> three +1s, and vetoes are only valid for code changes.
That page has a few issues IMO, for starters it not clear what "procedural issue” actually are or if it includes voting in PMC/committers or not. This has been discussed many times and changes suggested to be made to that page but none made. I was going to suggest some after discussion on the default guidelines thread on the board list.
Other pages [1] list consensus approval, as do a lot of project guidelines, including probably the HTTP one which states "approved by consensus of the active Apache PMC members”. I think some of this is confusion between what consensus means and consensus voting mean (or more correctly consensus approval) [2] (i.e. 3+1s and no -1’s.)
But perhaps this old (and perhaps familiar?) thread will help [3], particular this email [4] and the solution from the email [5] :-) There are other threads (newer and older) that come to the same conclusion.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#discussion
2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
3. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3c1a4887cc1b31bb85fcdbd0481d9f70895738740610aace15a7c9a3@1380595285@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
4. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8a2136812c31e7d05a4b1b8d07481e25438fbda5c30138770a072705@1380737476@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
5. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e7e1a40246df6e40188d06818ee296c8cd7a29002f5af9164b6a64d6@1380815332@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:39 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> ...From my reading of policy and many many discussions on mailing lists, it seem
> that consensus approval not majority approval is the standard way...
To me the ultimate reference is
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html - decisions are made by
consensus (*) which can be expressed by a majority vote with a least
three +1s, and vetoes are only valid for code changes.
Do you see that differently?
-Bertrand
(*) consensus being defined as "widespread agreement among people with
decision power", as opposed to unanimity - because the latter might
block progress
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I'm in favor of removing that clause and operating in the standard way with majority votes.
From my reading of policy and many many discussions on mailing lists, it seem that consensus approval not majority approval is the standard way. Although there is some confusion on this, and different project do operate under different rules.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Voting in new IPMC members
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:41 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> ..."Individuals may be nominated to join the IPMC after a vote which passes
> with more than 3/4 of those voting.”...
I didn't remember the discussion that led to that, and looking at it
again I don't think it solves an actual problem - it might have felt
useful at the time but I don't think it actually is.
I'm in favor of removing that clause and operating in the standard way
with majority votes.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org