You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Hen <ba...@apache.org> on 2018/06/22 00:20:22 UTC
Committer/PPMC votes
I’m wondering what a -1 means on a committer vote.
https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html says “and no vetoes”, while
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not list a new committer
vote as a “technical” vote.
My assumption is that the rules for voting for an Apache member are the
same as for voting for a PMC member or a committer. Ideally there are no
-1s, but at the end of the day it’s a majority vote.
ie: I think newcommitter.html is buggy.
Thoughts?
Hen
Re: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
From what I remember reading, the only votes that really seem to require
consensus are kicking people out.
On 22 June 2018 at 04:03, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:20 AM Hen <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...My assumption is that the rules for voting for an Apache member are
> the
> > same as for voting for a PMC member or a committer. Ideally there are no
> > -1s, but at the end of the day it’s a majority vote....
>
> That's my understanding: there are no vetoes except for code changes
> as per https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> However, a -1 when electing someone needs to be taken seriously, most
> projects that I know do consider it a soft veto...best IMO is to ask
> the voter if they agree to change to a -0, indicating that they are
> not enthusiastic but not opposed either.
>
> And if that doesn't work, find out if it's just a minority position
> (that we must accept does happen sometimes) or if there's really a
> serious problem to address.
>
> Hope this helps...
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:20 AM Hen <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...My assumption is that the rules for voting for an Apache member are the
> same as for voting for a PMC member or a committer. Ideally there are no
> -1s, but at the end of the day it’s a majority vote....
That's my understanding: there are no vetoes except for code changes
as per https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
However, a -1 when electing someone needs to be taken seriously, most
projects that I know do consider it a soft veto...best IMO is to ask
the voter if they agree to change to a -0, indicating that they are
not enthusiastic but not opposed either.
And if that doesn't work, find out if it's just a minority position
(that we must accept does happen sometimes) or if there's really a
serious problem to address.
Hope this helps...
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Roy said a while ago that for (P)PMC votes, a -1 is a veto. It is basically
saying, "I cannot work with this person". And corollary, "I should not have
to".
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 20:54 Hen <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> Foundation-wise, all our votes are Majority Voting (new member vote, board
> vote (ish), votes by the board themselves, omnibus voting). There's little
> expectation/requirement of consensus.
>
> Jakarta/Commons wise new committer votes felt that way (Majority); however
> both of those were large PMCs. Disagreement was more likely than on a
> smaller PMC so the reality was that we needed Majority instead of
> Consensus. The mantra was always "votes on code (technical) had veto,
> everything else was majority". But it was also, to your point, a strong
> culture to avoid relying on majority-overrule of a veto. Thus new release
> votes always felt like Consensus voting even if the rule says Majority
> voting.
>
> I think the release voting (
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) is similar to
> new committer votes. It's Majority Voting, but the Release Manager does
> hold a veto. I'd expect a PMC Chair to have a similar role in a new
> committer vote. "As Chair I consider the -1 from Alice to be a blocking
> veto; we need to discuss more". That doesn't work with Podlings though as
> there's no (local) buck-stops-here chair.
>
> It feels like there's an inconsistency between
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html and
> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html . Either we update
> newcommitter.html to explain that it's a Majority vote, but explain how
> unusual it should be to see -1 after discussion; or voting.html needs
> updating to explain that most (or all?) projects use Consensus voting to
> add committers (and presumably PMC members too).
>
> On most projects using consensus voting for committers/pmc; it feels that
> it's hard to tell the difference. If there are no -1s, a consensus and
> majority vote look the same. :)
>
> Hen
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Way back when each project having a set of bylaws/guidelines was
> > fashionable I looked through them and there is some variation but a -1
> on a
> > committer or PMC member is generally treated as a veto. That being said
> any
> > objections should really come up in the discussion stage (and hopefully
> > mitigated) before a vote is called so a -1 vote should be rare. If you
> look
> > at [1] [2] you see that consensus voting allows for a veto (with a
> reason)
> > and AFAIK most projects use consensus approval when adding committers/PMC
> > members. It may be some don’t realise this as a -1 has never come up.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > 2. 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: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Hen <ba...@apache.org>.
Interesting.
Foundation-wise, all our votes are Majority Voting (new member vote, board
vote (ish), votes by the board themselves, omnibus voting). There's little
expectation/requirement of consensus.
Jakarta/Commons wise new committer votes felt that way (Majority); however
both of those were large PMCs. Disagreement was more likely than on a
smaller PMC so the reality was that we needed Majority instead of
Consensus. The mantra was always "votes on code (technical) had veto,
everything else was majority". But it was also, to your point, a strong
culture to avoid relying on majority-overrule of a veto. Thus new release
votes always felt like Consensus voting even if the rule says Majority
voting.
I think the release voting (
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) is similar to
new committer votes. It's Majority Voting, but the Release Manager does
hold a veto. I'd expect a PMC Chair to have a similar role in a new
committer vote. "As Chair I consider the -1 from Alice to be a blocking
veto; we need to discuss more". That doesn't work with Podlings though as
there's no (local) buck-stops-here chair.
It feels like there's an inconsistency between
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html and
https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html . Either we update
newcommitter.html to explain that it's a Majority vote, but explain how
unusual it should be to see -1 after discussion; or voting.html needs
updating to explain that most (or all?) projects use Consensus voting to
add committers (and presumably PMC members too).
On most projects using consensus voting for committers/pmc; it feels that
it's hard to tell the difference. If there are no -1s, a consensus and
majority vote look the same. :)
Hen
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Way back when each project having a set of bylaws/guidelines was
> fashionable I looked through them and there is some variation but a -1 on a
> committer or PMC member is generally treated as a veto. That being said any
> objections should really come up in the discussion stage (and hopefully
> mitigated) before a vote is called so a -1 vote should be rare. If you look
> at [1] [2] you see that consensus voting allows for a veto (with a reason)
> and AFAIK most projects use consensus approval when adding committers/PMC
> members. It may be some don’t realise this as a -1 has never come up.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 2. 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: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Way back when each project having a set of bylaws/guidelines was fashionable I looked through them and there is some variation but a -1 on a committer or PMC member is generally treated as a veto. That being said any objections should really come up in the discussion stage (and hopefully mitigated) before a vote is called so a -1 vote should be rare. If you look at [1] [2] you see that consensus voting allows for a veto (with a reason) and AFAIK most projects use consensus approval when adding committers/PMC members. It may be some don’t realise this as a -1 has never come up.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
2. 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: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Agreed. It does not discuss having a [DISCUSS] thread before the [VOTE]. It is important to do that because then an objection (-1) can be discussed properly. There can be many reasons that a PMC member might object and these need to expressed. Not doing so might lose PMC members and hurt the community.
>
> I wanted to give this advice recently and was rather disappointed that I could not find documentation about an actual [DISCUSS] thread.
Perhaps this? [1]
Justin
1. https://community.apache.org/committers/voting.html#preparing-for-a-vote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Committer/PPMC votes
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
> On Jun 21, 2018, at 5:20 PM, Hen <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I’m wondering what a -1 means on a committer vote.
>
> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html says “and no vetoes”, while
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not list a new committer
> vote as a “technical” vote.
>
> My assumption is that the rules for voting for an Apache member are the
> same as for voting for a PMC member or a committer. Ideally there are no
> -1s, but at the end of the day it’s a majority vote.
>
> ie: I think newcommitter.html is buggy.
Agreed. It does not discuss having a [DISCUSS] thread before the [VOTE]. It is important to do that because then an objection (-1) can be discussed properly. There can be many reasons that a PMC member might object and these need to expressed. Not doing so might lose PMC members and hurt the community.
I wanted to give this advice recently and was rather disappointed that I could not find documentation about an actual [DISCUSS] thread.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Hen