You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2013/02/22 21:29:43 UTC
Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Hi all,
Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
to be our PMC chair.
Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5). In the
thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
to reconsider this position.
I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own. I
believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
I'm proposing the following change:
CURRENT:
2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
See http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The
decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
PROPOSED:
2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
board.
This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions. If we
don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
Thoughts?
-chip
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/apache-cloudstack-project-bylaws.html
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
> re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
> for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
> sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone
> have an opinion?
It'd be a good idea to have a term, but not a requirement than a chair
can't serve a second (or third, fourth, eighteenth...) term
consecutively.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mar 2, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2013, at 2:44 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> OK - I'm going to draft this up and start a vote now.
>
> I don't want to derail the voting process, but would like to clarify this part:
>
> ---
> recommend a new chair through consensus via a lazy 2/3 majority
> voting method. In the case that consensus is not achieved, the PMC
> will vote for a chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
> ---
>
> At first, I thought the first part meant voting on a number of candidates - but reading this thread it seems you meant:
> - take nominations, discussion ensues
> - if there is one name settled vote to confirm the decision to present to the board
> - if there's not a single name, then use STV
>
> Is that right? It may need a bit of clarification on what the first vote is about - but I don't think that should change the vote in progress.
That was the intent, yes.
I'll propose a slight clarification to the wording in the vote thread.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
> http://twitter.com/brettporter
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 02/03/2013, at 2:44 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> OK - I'm going to draft this up and start a vote now.
I don't want to derail the voting process, but would like to clarify this part:
---
recommend a new chair through consensus via a lazy 2/3 majority
voting method. In the case that consensus is not achieved, the PMC
will vote for a chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
---
At first, I thought the first part meant voting on a number of candidates - but reading this thread it seems you meant:
- take nominations, discussion ensues
- if there is one name settled vote to confirm the decision to present to the board
- if there's not a single name, then use STV
Is that right? It may need a bit of clarification on what the first vote is about - but I don't think that should change the vote in progress.
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting
process
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 05:15:16PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
> >> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
> >> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
> >> >
> >> > And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
> >> > re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
> >> > for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
> >> > sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone
> >> > have an opinion?
> >> >
> >> > -chip
> >>
> >> I'm personally 'meh' on this.
> >> As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful
> >> power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly
> >> if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time
> >> as they no longer wish to bear it.
> >>
> >> I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the
> >> perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity.
> >> From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the
> >> project that is an important consideration.
> >>
> >> --David
> >>
> >
> > David - your opinion was shifted during discussions on the private list.
> > Care to share an update?
> >
> > For the record - I'm for adding a term, where the option of switching
> > the chair (which is largely an administrative role anyway) is regularly
> > discussed. I'd propose annually.
> >
> > -chip
>
> Yes - meant to get to this earlier.
>
> My opinion has been swayed by Alex Karasulu
>
> While I was originally against this, I see little negative, and it has
> the following benefits:
>
> * ensures someone else learns the job
> * ensures that we are clear it isn't a position of power for one
> person or one company to hold onto forever.
>
> I'd be happy with a term for the chair and one year seems to be fine
> for term length.
>
> --David
>
OK - I'm going to draft this up and start a vote now.
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
>> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
>> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
>> >
>> > And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
>> > re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
>> > for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
>> > sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone
>> > have an opinion?
>> >
>> > -chip
>>
>> I'm personally 'meh' on this.
>> As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful
>> power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly
>> if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time
>> as they no longer wish to bear it.
>>
>> I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the
>> perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity.
>> From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the
>> project that is an important consideration.
>>
>> --David
>>
>
> David - your opinion was shifted during discussions on the private list.
> Care to share an update?
>
> For the record - I'm for adding a term, where the option of switching
> the chair (which is largely an administrative role anyway) is regularly
> discussed. I'd propose annually.
>
> -chip
Yes - meant to get to this earlier.
My opinion has been swayed by Alex Karasulu
While I was originally against this, I see little negative, and it has
the following benefits:
* ensures someone else learns the job
* ensures that we are clear it isn't a position of power for one
person or one company to hold onto forever.
I'd be happy with a term for the chair and one year seems to be fine
for term length.
--David
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting
process
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
> >
> > And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
> > re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
> > for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
> > sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone
> > have an opinion?
> >
> > -chip
>
> I'm personally 'meh' on this.
> As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful
> power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly
> if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time
> as they no longer wish to bear it.
>
> I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the
> perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity.
> From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the
> project that is an important consideration.
>
> --David
>
David - your opinion was shifted during discussions on the private list.
Care to share an update?
For the record - I'm for adding a term, where the option of switching
the chair (which is largely an administrative role anyway) is regularly
discussed. I'd propose annually.
-chip
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:23:41PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
>> > threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
>> > around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
>> > to be our PMC chair.
>> >
>> > Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
>> > Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5). In the
>> > thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
>> > to reconsider this position.
>> >
>> > I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
>> > the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own. I
>> > believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
>> > approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
>> >
>> > I'm proposing the following change:
>> >
>> > CURRENT:
>> >
>> > 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
>> > recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
>> > See http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The
>> > decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
>> >
>> > PROPOSED:
>> >
>> > 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
>> > recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
>> > This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
>> > discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
>> > candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
>> > board.
>> >
>> > This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions. If we
>> > don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
>> > bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > -chip
>> >
>> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/apache-cloudstack-project-bylaws.html
>>
>>
>>
>> So here are my thoughts:
>> 1. Chair is appointed by the board, generally upon recommendation of the PMC.
>
> True. Even as a TLP, that remains the case.
>
>> 2. There is a high likelihood that we'll continue to grow and might at
>> some point have contention for the Chair, even if it is friendly.
>> Discussing people (IMO) should not happen in public. There's a reason
>> we already do that for committers in private. Think of some of those
>> conversations that we've already had that simply have no place in
>> private. And I know your proposal calls for discussion in private, and
>> vote in public but here's the thing:
>>
>> The decision is one for the PMC to make.
>> You're effectively 'voting' by nominating someone and pushing them
>> forward - which means the 'vote' will be more of voting theatre than a
>> real vote, and really more of a ratification of the decision made in
>> private.
>
> Yes, Sebastien made that point as well. I fear I missed the mark with
> the specifics of this proposed change.
>
>> Additionally, only votes by the (P)PMC are binding, and
>> unlike technical discussions, it would be bad form to discuss people
>> in public. So I am personally struggling to see the benefit afforded
>> by 'voting' in public. You can disagree, but if there is dissent it
>> being public would potentially be deleterious to the person it is said
>> about.
>>
>> I can see doing away with STV (or only resorting to it if clear
>> consensus isn't achieved).
>
> I'd like to modify my proposed change, but I think we still have issues
> to discuss with this modification:
>
> 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
> This vote would be held on the private mailing list, after a
> discussion to nominate a candidate for the role. The decision must be
> ratified by the Apache board.
>
> The problem I see with this new version, goes to the point you
> made about contention: What happens if the discussion doesn't lead to
> a single candidate? Do we opt for STV as a backup process? In that case,
> does it even make sense to have that lazy 2/3 majority statement above?
>
So STV has a lot of good things - but really seems (IMO) best suited
for large groups with multiple candidates, with multiple good choices.
> The issues we have to balance are (1) fairness, (2) being as open as
> possible, (3) respect for privacy for individuals.
>
STV does a good job of 1 and 3.
Lazy consensus does a decent job of 1 and a good job of 2.
> I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
> discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
>
> And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
> re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
> for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
> sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone
> have an opinion?
>
> -chip
I'm personally 'meh' on this.
As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful
power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly
if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time
as they no longer wish to bear it.
I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the
perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity.
>From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the
project that is an important consideration.
--David
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting
process
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:23:41PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> > threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> > around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> > to be our PMC chair.
> >
> > Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
> > Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5). In the
> > thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
> > to reconsider this position.
> >
> > I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
> > the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own. I
> > believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
> > approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
> >
> > I'm proposing the following change:
> >
> > CURRENT:
> >
> > 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> > recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
> > See http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The
> > decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
> >
> > PROPOSED:
> >
> > 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> > recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
> > This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
> > discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
> > candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
> > board.
> >
> > This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions. If we
> > don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
> > bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/apache-cloudstack-project-bylaws.html
>
>
>
> So here are my thoughts:
> 1. Chair is appointed by the board, generally upon recommendation of the PMC.
True. Even as a TLP, that remains the case.
> 2. There is a high likelihood that we'll continue to grow and might at
> some point have contention for the Chair, even if it is friendly.
> Discussing people (IMO) should not happen in public. There's a reason
> we already do that for committers in private. Think of some of those
> conversations that we've already had that simply have no place in
> private. And I know your proposal calls for discussion in private, and
> vote in public but here's the thing:
>
> The decision is one for the PMC to make.
> You're effectively 'voting' by nominating someone and pushing them
> forward - which means the 'vote' will be more of voting theatre than a
> real vote, and really more of a ratification of the decision made in
> private.
Yes, Sebastien made that point as well. I fear I missed the mark with
the specifics of this proposed change.
> Additionally, only votes by the (P)PMC are binding, and
> unlike technical discussions, it would be bad form to discuss people
> in public. So I am personally struggling to see the benefit afforded
> by 'voting' in public. You can disagree, but if there is dissent it
> being public would potentially be deleterious to the person it is said
> about.
>
> I can see doing away with STV (or only resorting to it if clear
> consensus isn't achieved).
I'd like to modify my proposed change, but I think we still have issues
to discuss with this modification:
2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
This vote would be held on the private mailing list, after a
discussion to nominate a candidate for the role. The decision must be
ratified by the Apache board.
The problem I see with this new version, goes to the point you
made about contention: What happens if the discussion doesn't lead to
a single candidate? Do we opt for STV as a backup process? In that case,
does it even make sense to have that lazy 2/3 majority statement above?
The issues we have to balance are (1) fairness, (2) being as open as
possible, (3) respect for privacy for individuals.
I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone
have an opinion?
-chip
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> to be our PMC chair.
>
> Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
> Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5). In the
> thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
> to reconsider this position.
>
> I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
> the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own. I
> believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
> approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
>
> I'm proposing the following change:
>
> CURRENT:
>
> 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
> See http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The
> decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
>
> PROPOSED:
>
> 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
> This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
> discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
> candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
> board.
>
> This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions. If we
> don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
> bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -chip
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/apache-cloudstack-project-bylaws.html
So here are my thoughts:
1. Chair is appointed by the board, generally upon recommendation of the PMC.
2. There is a high likelihood that we'll continue to grow and might at
some point have contention for the Chair, even if it is friendly.
Discussing people (IMO) should not happen in public. There's a reason
we already do that for committers in private. Think of some of those
conversations that we've already had that simply have no place in
private. And I know your proposal calls for discussion in private, and
vote in public but here's the thing:
The decision is one for the PMC to make.
You're effectively 'voting' by nominating someone and pushing them
forward - which means the 'vote' will be more of voting theatre than a
real vote, and really more of a ratification of the decision made in
private. Additionally, only votes by the (P)PMC are binding, and
unlike technical discussions, it would be bad form to discuss people
in public. So I am personally struggling to see the benefit afforded
by 'voting' in public. You can disagree, but if there is dissent it
being public would potentially be deleterious to the person it is said
about.
I can see doing away with STV (or only resorting to it if clear
consensus isn't achieved).
--David
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting
process
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> The PMC would only put one candidate forward ?
> This would make the vote on the dev list more of a ratification than a vote.
>
> Should the PMC put multiple candidates forward ?
Open to suggestions on this, but I was assuming the normal process of
keeping discussion of individuals private.
Perhaps it doesn't work in this case?
Anyone else have a suggestion?
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting
process
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> > threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> > around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> > to be our PMC chair.
> >
> > Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
> > Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5). In the
> > thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
> > to reconsider this position.
> >
> > I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
> > the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own. I
> > believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
> > approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
> >
> > I'm proposing the following change:
> >
> > CURRENT:
> >
> > 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> > recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
> > See http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The
> > decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
> >
> > PROPOSED:
> >
> > 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> > recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
> > This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
> > discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
> > candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
> > board.
> >
>
> The PMC would only put one candidate forward ?
> This would make the vote on the dev list more of a ratification than a vote.
>
I guess it does that, yes. I was attempting to straddle open vs.
respect for privacy when discussing individuals.
> Should the PMC put multiple candidates forward ?
>
> > This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions. If we
> > don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
> > bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/apache-cloudstack-project-bylaws.html
>
>
Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> to be our PMC chair.
>
> Currently, our bylaws [1] state that we would use the Single
> Transferable Vote method for this selection (see section 2.4.5). In the
> thread on the private list, our mentors have suggested that we may want
> to reconsider this position.
>
> I'll admit that we have it in our bylaws, purely because I started with
> the Hadoop project's document as a starting point for our own. I
> believe that the Hadoop folks probably have a very good reason for this
> approach, but perhaps it's not right for our community.
>
> I'm proposing the following change:
>
> CURRENT:
>
> 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting.
> See http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The
> decision must be ratified by the Apache board.
>
> PROPOSED:
>
> 2.4.5. If the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
> recommend a new chair using a lazy 2/3 majority voting method.
> This vote would be held on the cloudstack-dev mail list, after a
> discussion is held on the cloudstack-private list to nominate a
> candidate for the role. The decision must be ratified by the Apache
> board.
>
The PMC would only put one candidate forward ?
This would make the vote on the dev list more of a ratification than a vote.
Should the PMC put multiple candidates forward ?
> This is the discussion thread to see if people have any opinions. If we
> don't have any big concerns, I'll start a new VOTE thread to change the
> bylaws (using the rules in section 3.4.9 of the bylaws themselves).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -chip
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/apache-cloudstack-project-bylaws.html