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 2013/07/19 17:32:29 UTC
[DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> binding -1 votes.
I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to
use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as
> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
Even though I occasionally disagree with the outcome of the current
bylaws, I think there's value in having a "veto" over adding committers
or PMC members. I'd be -1 to this.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Yes, ignoring our egregious mis-use of that term, I am +1 on your idea.
Though, perhaps 3/4 is safer.
Consensus is important, yes. But the bigger the PMC, the harder it is to
achieve. And more often than not, I see no reason to block an action when a
supermajority are clearly in favour of it. Let's not trade hard-nosed
consensus for sclerosis.
On 19 July 2013 16:32, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
> know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
> a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
>
> > Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> > binding -1 votes.
>
> I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to
> use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
>
> > Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as
> > many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
> Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
>
--
NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
> know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
> a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
I would be in favor of defining it correctly, though. :-)
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
> know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
> a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
>
>> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>> binding -1 votes.
>
> I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to
> use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as
>> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
> Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
So despite this arising from a discussion I originated, I am not sure
I want to see this go away. As frustrating as it is to, we are a
community built on consensus, and even if we can't get that around
adding PMC and committer votes, I am not sure that it's wise to add
new folks. Requiring no dissent is a powerful enabler for individuals,
even if it occasionally thwarts the will of the majority. Having seen
other projects with a majority rules approach to this, I don't see
them as better off. While I might disagree with some of my fellow PMC
members, I still respect their decision, and hope that when I am the
person casting a -1, they'll respect mine as well.
--David
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>.
I know, was a jokeŠ But they are also a representative of the project to
the board and externally as well.
Matt
On 7/26/13 4:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:59:35PM +0000, Mathias Mullins wrote:
>> This is the Leader of the Free (CloudStack) world you know. ;-)
>
>No, it's an administrative function in support of the PMC as a whole
>really. That's why we're rotating/reevaluating it annually.
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:59:35PM +0000, Mathias Mullins wrote:
> This is the Leader of the Free (CloudStack) world you know. ;-)
No, it's an administrative function in support of the PMC as a whole
really. That's why we're rotating/reevaluating it annually.
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>.
I guess my thought is that if you are going to strengthen the rules for
PMC then the Chair should be as well.
This is the Leader of the Free (CloudStack) world you know. ;-)
Matt
On 7/26/13 12:33 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>The by-laws already stipulate lazy 2/3 majority for the Chair.
>
>Chip is proposing that the same applies to committers and PMC members.
>
>I see no reason to make it any more complex than that.
>
>
>On 24 July 2013 18:33, Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I think I
>> would want to be voted in.
>>
>> For Committer - 2/3 Lazy
>> This makes sure that at least 2 people basically nominated, and seconded
>> and the votes were 2:1 in favor of the person coming in.
>>
>> For PMC - 3/4 Lazy
>> This is the leadership of the project and there needs to be a true
>> consensus and not just a majority to bring someone in. This allows for a
>> higher consensus to be reached.
>>
>> For Chairman (I think you guys missed this one, maybe it was applied) -
>> 3/4 Lazy with no -1 Binding Veto
>> The PMC has to be in Consensus and there can't really be a major dissent
>> in my thought process. Veto also requires a through explanation why.
>>
>> 2 cents,
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/19/13 1:27 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Specifically, Chip is calling for us to change committer / PMC votes
>>from
>> >"lazy consensus" to "2/3 majority". (That is, the vote type for that
>> >specific decision making process changes, but the vote type definitions
>> >are
>> >left alone.)
>> >
>> >
>> >On 19 July 2013 17:32, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> >> > There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus.
>> >>Are
>> >> we
>> >> > discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes?
>> >>
>> >> New committer and PMC membership.
>> >>
>> >> sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the
>>$subject:
>> >> new committer / new PMC member votes only.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes
>> >>Noah, I
>> >> > >know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think
>> >>that's
>> >> > >a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>>no
>> >> > >> binding -1 votes.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting
>>rule
>> >>to
>> >> > >use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and
>> >>twice as
>> >> > >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >NS
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
The by-laws already stipulate lazy 2/3 majority for the Chair.
Chip is proposing that the same applies to committers and PMC members.
I see no reason to make it any more complex than that.
On 24 July 2013 18:33, Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com> wrote:
> So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I think I
> would want to be voted in.
>
> For Committer - 2/3 Lazy
> This makes sure that at least 2 people basically nominated, and seconded
> and the votes were 2:1 in favor of the person coming in.
>
> For PMC - 3/4 Lazy
> This is the leadership of the project and there needs to be a true
> consensus and not just a majority to bring someone in. This allows for a
> higher consensus to be reached.
>
> For Chairman (I think you guys missed this one, maybe it was applied) -
> 3/4 Lazy with no -1 Binding Veto
> The PMC has to be in Consensus and there can't really be a major dissent
> in my thought process. Veto also requires a through explanation why.
>
> 2 cents,
> Matt
>
>
>
> On 7/19/13 1:27 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Specifically, Chip is calling for us to change committer / PMC votes from
> >"lazy consensus" to "2/3 majority". (That is, the vote type for that
> >specific decision making process changes, but the vote type definitions
> >are
> >left alone.)
> >
> >
> >On 19 July 2013 17:32, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >> > There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus.
> >>Are
> >> we
> >> > discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes?
> >>
> >> New committer and PMC membership.
> >>
> >> sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the $subject:
> >> new committer / new PMC member votes only.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes
> >>Noah, I
> >> > >know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think
> >>that's
> >> > >a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> >> > >> binding -1 votes.
> >> > >
> >> > >I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule
> >>to
> >> > >use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and
> >>twice as
> >> > >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
> >> > >
> >> > >Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >NS
>
>
--
NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Mathias Mullins <ma...@citrix.com>.
So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I think I
would want to be voted in.
For Committer - 2/3 Lazy
This makes sure that at least 2 people basically nominated, and seconded
and the votes were 2:1 in favor of the person coming in.
For PMC - 3/4 Lazy
This is the leadership of the project and there needs to be a true
consensus and not just a majority to bring someone in. This allows for a
higher consensus to be reached.
For Chairman (I think you guys missed this one, maybe it was applied) -
3/4 Lazy with no -1 Binding Veto
The PMC has to be in Consensus and there can't really be a major dissent
in my thought process. Veto also requires a through explanation why.
2 cents,
Matt
On 7/19/13 1:27 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>Specifically, Chip is calling for us to change committer / PMC votes from
>"lazy consensus" to "2/3 majority". (That is, the vote type for that
>specific decision making process changes, but the vote type definitions
>are
>left alone.)
>
>
>On 19 July 2013 17:32, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> > There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus.
>>Are
>> we
>> > discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes?
>>
>> New committer and PMC membership.
>>
>> sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the $subject:
>> new committer / new PMC member votes only.
>>
>> >
>> > On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes
>>Noah, I
>> > >know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think
>>that's
>> > >a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
>> > >
>> > >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>> > >> binding -1 votes.
>> > >
>> > >I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule
>>to
>> > >use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
>> > >
>> > >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and
>>twice as
>> > >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>> > >
>> > >Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Specifically, Chip is calling for us to change committer / PMC votes from
"lazy consensus" to "2/3 majority". (That is, the vote type for that
specific decision making process changes, but the vote type definitions are
left alone.)
On 19 July 2013 17:32, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> > There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus. Are
> we
> > discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes?
>
> New committer and PMC membership.
>
> sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the $subject:
> new committer / new PMC member votes only.
>
> >
> > On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> >
> > >As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
> > >know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
> > >a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
> > >
> > >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> > >> binding -1 votes.
> > >
> > >I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to
> > >use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
> > >
> > >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as
> > >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
> > >
> > >Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
> >
> >
>
--
NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus. Are we
> discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes?
New committer and PMC membership.
sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the $subject:
new committer / new PMC member votes only.
>
> On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> >As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
> >know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
> >a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
> >
> >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> >> binding -1 votes.
> >
> >I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to
> >use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
> >
> >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as
> >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
> >
> >Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaw changes for new committer / new PMC member votes
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus. Are we
discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes?
On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I
>know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's
>a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as:
>
>> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>> binding -1 votes.
>
>I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to
>use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as:
>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as
>> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
>Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?