You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> on 2003/01/29 19:12:19 UTC
[PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
People,
since Cocoon got approuved as a top level project, we have a PMC, but
the ASF is designed in such a way that each PMC can choose its own rules
and policies.
With my PMC chair hat on (I will rarely use it, but the first PMC post
is a must) I would like to discuss those policies in public, because
there is no need to do otherwise.
The first policy we need is how to handle votes, otherwise we won't be
able to vote. In order to vote the vote policies, we'll use the old
lazy-consensus vote system we are used to.
NOTE: the difference between the old voting rules and the new ones will
only be precision. The substance will remain the same.
I'm borrowing the work done by the Avalon PMC, and I'm including it below.
I will use the [PMC] prefix for all email that will have PMC-related
public discussions. The PMC has a private list but that will only be
used for things that *require* privacy, such as legal issues or security
problems.
That list isn't setup yet.
We'll do that as soon as we have the policies finished.
Find below the voting procedures taken from the Avalon PMC (they have
not yet finalized them). I've changed all references to Avalon and added
one paragraph (tagged appropriately below)
Please give your feedback.
Thank you.
- o -
PMC Voting Procedures
=====================
This document details how the PMC has agreed to handle voting.
People Involved in the Voting Process
-------------------------------------
The Proposer
------------
The proposer is the one who comes up with the discussion that needs to
be addressed. Any member of the community may start the discussion. The
proposer must follow the procedures listed under the heading "Prior to
the Vote".
The Vote Administrator
----------------------
The vote administrator is the person who tallies the votes and reports
the results. The person who actually puts a proposal up for vote is
usually the vote administrator, although this task can be taken on by
someone else.
The Voter
---------
A voter is someone who expresses support, opposition or abstention for
the subject being voted on. A voter must be a PMC member. Input is
appreciated from committers and all other members of the community, but
only votes from PMC members are counted.
Prior to the Vote
=================
Before any vote can take place, the subject must be discussed. All such
discussions take place on the developer or PMC mailing list, and have
the text "[PROPOSAL]" in the subject line. That practice alerts members
to the fact that you eventually intend to call a vote on the subject.
The Vote
========
When the proposal is ready to be adopted by the community, the Proposer
will call for a vote on the developers or PMC mailing list. The call for
vote must have the text "[PMC:VOTE]" in the subject line. That practice
alerts the members to the fact that the prior proposal is now ready to
vote on, and discussion should stop for the proposal.
How to Vote
===========
The voter responds to the call for vote with an expression of support,
opposition, or abstention. The exact way to express the voter's position
is listed below:
* +1 a vote supporting the subject
* +0 a vote abstaining from the subject (but showing some support).
* -0 a vote abstaining from the subject (but showing disapproval).
* -1 a vote opposing the subject
<added author="SM">
Any opposive vote must contain a detailed description of the reasoning
that led to that vote and potentially indicate an alternative proposal
that he/she would favor.
</added>
Counting Votes
==============
The vote administrator will count only the last vote from each voter.
That means a voter may change their vote at any time during the duration
of the vote.
Types of Votes
==============
There are two classes of votes: a Qualified Majority Vote and a Normal
Majority Vote.
Qualified Majority Vote
-----------------------
Any vote that affects the texts "PMC Charter" or "PMC Policies and
Procedures" is a Qualified Majority Vote. For this type of vote to pass,
it requires support from two-thirds (2/3) of the voters.
Normal Majority Vote
--------------------
All votes that do not fall under the heading of Qualified Majority Vote
are handled as a Normal Majority Vote. If more than half (1/2) of the
voters support it, then the vote has passed.
Voting Qualifications
=====================
In order for any vote to be considered binding it must have quorum, and
be held for the proper amount of time.
Quorum
------
For all votes, there must be at least three (3) voters and half (1/2) of
the PMC must cast a vote.
Duration
--------
All votes will be open for an initial period of one week. The Vote
Administrator may close the vote at any time after that period if quorum
has been achieved. If quorum could not be reached within the initial
one-week period, the vote will remain open for one additional week. If
the vote still has not achieved quorum, then it is considered failed.
The proposer can choose to bring it up later when quorum can be reached.
After the Vote
==============
When the vote is closed, the results of the vote are summarized by the
Vote Administrator. The vote administrator will send an email to the
Avalon developers or PMC list with the text "[PMC:VOTE-RESULT]" in the
subject that has the summary. The summary will include the count of all
+1, +0, -0, and -1 responses, and the final verdict of whether the
subject passed.
Disagreements
=============
Disagreements concerning voting may be directed to the Chair. The
Chair's opinion shall be final and binding upon the PMC.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 31 January 2003 21:07, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> A lack of voting, or a lack of taking any stand whatsoever is "concent
> by default". Basically if enough +1's go through, then the vote passes
> whether you really wanted it to or not. Abstaining, or voting 0 in the
> hopes of having a vote to not reach quorum is a gamble. If you don't
> want something to pass just have the guts to say -1. That's all.
Well, what I am trying to say is, that if the quorom limit equals the limit
for +1 votes, there is a design flaw in the system. (Not discussing morals,
should do or not, will do, can not and so on.) The higher you place the
quorom, the more you favour the "-1" side. If the quorom is 100%, you see the
obvious, if it is 0% you only need a single vote. If you truly believe in an
active PMC, put the quorom at 0% and allow 2 weeks for voting. No PMC member
should be away for more than 2 weeks, right...
I would suggest that the qurom is lowered a bit, perhaps 30%, making the use
of the -1 vote explicit, i.e. you can not practically "vote down" by not
voting at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 31 January 2003 14:07, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>>>People, use some logic here...
>>>
>>>The fact that a 50% quorum is required, and the vote will automatically
>>>fail if a qurom is not reached, it is better for the "opposition" not to
>>>vote at all, than vote -1. There are almost always someone
>>>"lazy"/"vacation"/"sick" that is unable to vote, which then is a indirect
>>>vote against, if the "opposition" refrains from voting.
>>>
>>>Clear?
>>
>>In Avalon, where the voting procedures came from, there was a larger
>>problem than apathy. Those issues have to a large part been resolved,
>>and I will not dig them up here.
>>
>>Suffice it to say:
>>
>>The Cocoon PMC members who have volunteered for the job, are responsible
>>to respond to PMC votes. It is also *very* important to have a concept
>>where we are not sneaky. We say what we mean, and we mean what we say.
>
>
> Ok, just showing a bug in the design... ;o)
> I also hope that there won't be a problem, but let me give an absurd example;
>
> In the late 60's a new one-chamber parliment constitution was designed in
> Sweden, consisting of "majority votes" and 350 delegates. It went into
> practice in 1970 election, and in 1973 election the "design flaw" surfaced.
> Two blocks of parties with 175 votes each, and for 3 years all major issues
> were decided by "lucky draw".
> I'm not sure, but I think they even broke the constitution when they changed
> the number of delegates to 349 to the next election (changes to the
> constitution must be ratified by 3 elected parliments (2 elections) or
> something like that), to avoid this circus in the future.
Well, let me finish the thought I started last night and was too tired.
A lack of voting, or a lack of taking any stand whatsoever is "concent
by default". Basically if enough +1's go through, then the vote passes
whether you really wanted it to or not. Abstaining, or voting 0 in the
hopes of having a vote to not reach quorum is a gamble. If you don't
want something to pass just have the guts to say -1. That's all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 31 January 2003 14:07, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > People, use some logic here...
> >
> > The fact that a 50% quorum is required, and the vote will automatically
> > fail if a qurom is not reached, it is better for the "opposition" not to
> > vote at all, than vote -1. There are almost always someone
> > "lazy"/"vacation"/"sick" that is unable to vote, which then is a indirect
> > vote against, if the "opposition" refrains from voting.
> >
> > Clear?
>
> In Avalon, where the voting procedures came from, there was a larger
> problem than apathy. Those issues have to a large part been resolved,
> and I will not dig them up here.
>
> Suffice it to say:
>
> The Cocoon PMC members who have volunteered for the job, are responsible
> to respond to PMC votes. It is also *very* important to have a concept
> where we are not sneaky. We say what we mean, and we mean what we say.
Ok, just showing a bug in the design... ;o)
I also hope that there won't be a problem, but let me give an absurd example;
In the late 60's a new one-chamber parliment constitution was designed in
Sweden, consisting of "majority votes" and 350 delegates. It went into
practice in 1970 election, and in 1973 election the "design flaw" surfaced.
Two blocks of parties with 175 votes each, and for 3 years all major issues
were decided by "lucky draw".
I'm not sure, but I think they even broke the constitution when they changed
the number of delegates to 349 to the next election (changes to the
constitution must be ratified by 3 elected parliments (2 elections) or
something like that), to avoid this circus in the future.
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> People, use some logic here...
>
> The fact that a 50% quorum is required, and the vote will automatically fail
> if a qurom is not reached, it is better for the "opposition" not to vote at
> all, than vote -1. There are almost always someone "lazy"/"vacation"/"sick"
> that is unable to vote, which then is a indirect vote against, if the
> "opposition" refrains from voting.
>
> Clear?
In Avalon, where the voting procedures came from, there was a larger
problem than apathy. Those issues have to a large part been resolved,
and I will not dig them up here.
Suffice it to say:
The Cocoon PMC members who have volunteered for the job, are responsible
to respond to PMC votes. It is also *very* important to have a concept
where we are not sneaky. We say what we mean, and we mean what we say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
People, use some logic here...
The fact that a 50% quorum is required, and the vote will automatically fail
if a qurom is not reached, it is better for the "opposition" not to vote at
all, than vote -1. There are almost always someone "lazy"/"vacation"/"sick"
that is unable to vote, which then is a indirect vote against, if the
"opposition" refrains from voting.
Clear?
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Giacomo Pati wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>The PMC is not responsible
>>for code, they are responsible for community.
>
>
> Hmm.. IIRC I remember dicussions held at Apache Con in Las Vegas where the
> general expectation was that a PMC *is* responsible for the code
> at least concerning licensing issues (Jakarta being to big for code
> oversight of the PMC). This is one of the reasons why this restructuring
> of ASF projects (promoting sub project like Cocoon and Avalon as top
> level projects) takes place.
That doesn't negate what I was trying to communicate. The PMC is
responsible for legal issues--which is essentially a community
issue. We all are responsible for making sure that the code and
JARs stored in the CVS is compatible with ASF licensing (in the
code example it has to be ASF license...).
All I was saying is that the PMC does not direct the technical
direction of the Cocoon project.
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Giacomo Pati <gi...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >
> >> People,
> >>
> >> since Cocoon got approuved as a top level project, we have a PMC, but
> >> the ASF is designed in such a way that each PMC can choose its own
> >> rules and policies.
> >
> >
> >
> > <snip because="agree"/>
<snip because="agree as well"/>
> >
> >> <added author="SM">
> >> Any opposive vote must contain a detailed description of the reasoning
> >> that led to that vote and potentially indicate an alternative proposal
> >> that he/she would favor.
> >> </added>
> >
> >
> >
> > Requiring explanation of a negative vote is good. However, if the
> > explanation leads to an alternative proposal, that proposal should be
> > discussed separately, in order not to start a discussion within the vote
> > thread (SoC ?).
>
> Keep in mind the purpose of this document. It is for PMC related
> proposals and votes.
>
> That means topics like changing the official PMC documentation (charter
> and bylaws), or procedural changes (new mailing list, adding a CVS
> repository, etc.).
>
> It is not for general coding directions.
> The PMC is not responsible
> for code, they are responsible for community.
Hmm.. IIRC I remember dicussions held at Apache Con in Las Vegas where the
general expectation was that a PMC *is* responsible for the code
at least concerning licensing issues (Jakarta being to big for code
oversight of the PMC). This is one of the reasons why this restructuring
of ASF projects (promoting sub project like Cocoon and Avalon as top
level projects) takes place.
Giacomo
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> People,
>>
>> since Cocoon got approuved as a top level project, we have a PMC, but
>> the ASF is designed in such a way that each PMC can choose its own
>> rules and policies.
>
>
>
> <snip because="agree"/>
>
>> <added author="SM">
>> Any opposive vote must contain a detailed description of the reasoning
>> that led to that vote and potentially indicate an alternative proposal
>> that he/she would favor.
>> </added>
>
>
>
> Requiring explanation of a negative vote is good. However, if the
> explanation leads to an alternative proposal, that proposal should be
> discussed separately, in order not to start a discussion within the vote
> thread (SoC ?).
Keep in mind the purpose of this document. It is for PMC related
proposals and votes.
That means topics like changing the official PMC documentation (charter
and bylaws), or procedural changes (new mailing list, adding a CVS
repository, etc.).
It is not for general coding directions. The PMC is not responsible
for code, they are responsible for community.
99.9% of the time, the vote is merely academic because there was
sufficient discussion before the proposal was made a vote.
Usually there are only three reasons for -1 at this stage:
1) The voter is *really* against it for good reasons and his
advice was not heeded. This speaks to a community issue,
because his concerns should already have been addressed.
2) The proposer rushed the proposal through and did not allow
sufficient time for the community to comment on it. At that
time the community may vote -1 to bring it back to proposal
stage.
3) The voter is merely being obstenant. The community believes
that greater good will come because of the proposal, but the
voter is having a bad day, or doesn't like the proposer.
Again this is a community issue--and it is a very rare one
at that.
In all three cases it is a breakdown in communication that
causes the -1. Unfortunately I have seen all three of these
cases in recent history (not here). It is more "bureaucratic" than
alot of people like, but it has the purpose to make people think
carefully about actions that will have profound implications
on the community in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Ivelin Ivanov <iv...@apache.org>.
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> > People,
> >
> > since Cocoon got approuved as a top level project, we have a PMC, but
> > the ASF is designed in such a way that each PMC can choose its own
> > rules and policies.
>
>
> <snip because="agree"/>
I think this document is a good start.
I assume that we can tailor it to our group's needs as we go.
-=Ivelin=-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@anyware-tech.com>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> People,
>
> since Cocoon got approuved as a top level project, we have a PMC, but
> the ASF is designed in such a way that each PMC can choose its own
> rules and policies.
<snip because="agree"/>
> <added author="SM">
> Any opposive vote must contain a detailed description of the reasoning
> that led to that vote and potentially indicate an alternative proposal
> that he/she would favor.
> </added>
Requiring explanation of a negative vote is good. However, if the
explanation leads to an alternative proposal, that proposal should be
discussed separately, in order not to start a discussion within the vote
thread (SoC ?).
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>> What does it mean exactly? Is it a logical AND? Given a PMC of 20
>>> people, what is the quorum, 3 or 10? What is the difference between
>>> "voters" and the ones who "cast a vote" (given that only PMC members
>>> count officially as "voters/votes")?
>>
>>
>>
>> At least 3.
>> Half the PMC.
>>
>>
>> That means if there is 20 people, Quorum is 10.
>> If there are only 4 people, quorum is 3 (not 2).
>
>
> OK, it might be my bad English, but I think that rephrasing this in
> order to make it more clear would be a good thing. Reversing it sounds a
> bit better to me:
>
> "For all votes half (1/2) of the PMC must cast a vote, with a minimum of
> 3 votes being required in any case"
>
> Also, while I assume that the board might have something to say in that
> case, what happens if the PMC drops to 3 or less people?
At three, you can still meet quorum ;P
Seriously, with as large a community as Cocoon has, if the PMC is that
small then something is terribly wrong.
Now if for some strange freak happenstance that the Cocoon community
dried up and there were only three people with any real interest in it
then it might be something where Cocoon either floats away into the
"ether" or they make a new kick-but community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>> What does it mean exactly? Is it a logical AND? Given a PMC of 20
>>> people, what is the quorum, 3 or 10? What is the difference between
>>> "voters" and the ones who "cast a vote" (given that only PMC members
>>> count officially as "voters/votes")?
>>
>>
>>
>> At least 3.
>> Half the PMC.
>>
>>
>> That means if there is 20 people, Quorum is 10.
>> If there are only 4 people, quorum is 3 (not 2).
>
>
> OK, it might be my bad English, but I think that rephrasing this in
> order to make it more clear would be a good thing. Reversing it sounds a
> bit better to me:
>
> "For all votes half (1/2) of the PMC must cast a vote, with a minimum of
> 3 votes being required in any case"
>
> Also, while I assume that the board might have something to say in that
> case, what happens if the PMC drops to 3 or less people?
At three, you can still meet quorum ;P
Seriously, with as large a community as Cocoon has, if the PMC is that
small then something is terribly wrong.
Now if for some strange freak happenstance that the Cocoon community
dried up and there were only three people with any real interest in it
then it might be something where Cocoon either floats away into the
"ether" or they make a new kick-but community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Miles Elam <mi...@pcextremist.com>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Also, while I assume that the board might have something to say in
> that case, what happens if the PMC drops to 3 or less people?
If PMC membership drops to two (or one) person, the least of your
worries is how to handle a vote. It means the project is close to
thermal death.
- Miles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> What does it mean exactly? Is it a logical AND? Given a PMC of 20
>> people, what is the quorum, 3 or 10? What is the difference between
>> "voters" and the ones who "cast a vote" (given that only PMC members
>> count officially as "voters/votes")?
>
>
> At least 3.
> Half the PMC.
>
>
> That means if there is 20 people, Quorum is 10.
> If there are only 4 people, quorum is 3 (not 2).
OK, it might be my bad English, but I think that rephrasing this in
order to make it more clear would be a good thing. Reversing it sounds a
bit better to me:
"For all votes half (1/2) of the PMC must cast a vote, with a minimum of
3 votes being required in any case"
Also, while I assume that the board might have something to say in that
case, what happens if the PMC drops to 3 or less people?
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
CTO
Pro-netics s.r.l.
http://www.pro-netics.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Find below the voting procedures taken from the Avalon PMC (they have
>> not yet finalized them). I've changed all references to Avalon
>
> Looks basically good to me. I'm not getting however the point below:
>
>> Quorum
>> ------
>>
>> For all votes, there must be at least three (3) voters and half (1/2)
>> of the PMC must cast a vote.
>
>
> What does it mean exactly? Is it a logical AND? Given a PMC of 20
> people, what is the quorum, 3 or 10? What is the difference between
> "voters" and the ones who "cast a vote" (given that only PMC members
> count officially as "voters/votes")?
At least 3.
Half the PMC.
That means if there is 20 people, Quorum is 10.
If there are only 4 people, quorum is 3 (not 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Find below the voting procedures taken from the Avalon PMC (they have
> not yet finalized them). I've changed all references to Avalon
Well, almost: :-)
> Vote Administrator. The vote administrator will send an email to the
> Avalon developers or PMC list with the text "[PMC:VOTE-RESULT]" in the
^^^^^^
Looks basically good to me. I'm not getting however the point below:
> Quorum
> ------
>
> For all votes, there must be at least three (3) voters and half (1/2) of the PMC must cast a vote.
What does it mean exactly? Is it a logical AND? Given a PMC of 20
people, what is the quorum, 3 or 10? What is the difference between
"voters" and the ones who "cast a vote" (given that only PMC members
count officially as "voters/votes")?
Thanks,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
CTO
Pro-netics s.r.l.
http://www.pro-netics.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Steven Noels wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Find below the voting procedures taken from the Avalon PMC (they have
>> not yet finalized them). I've changed all references to Avalon and
>> added one paragraph (tagged appropriately below)
>
>
> More colloquially: when will normal, lazy-consensus votes be used, and
> when PMC votes? Some situations:
>
> - releases
> - new committers
> - code donations
>
> I understand releases need a PMC vote. New committers: I'm not sure. PMC
> should be informed, but no real vote. Code donations: I guess so (for
> oversight reasons).
New committers, maybe not. For new PMC members, definitely.
For code donations, never. PMC is about community, not code.
Committers are concerned about code.
It's an oversimplification, but it works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Find below the voting procedures taken from the Avalon PMC (they have
> not yet finalized them). I've changed all references to Avalon and added
> one paragraph (tagged appropriately below)
More colloquially: when will normal, lazy-consensus votes be used, and
when PMC votes? Some situations:
- releases
- new committers
- code donations
I understand releases need a PMC vote. New committers: I'm not sure. PMC
should be informed, but no real vote. Code donations: I guess so (for
oversight reasons).
<snip type="agree"/>
> How to Vote
> ===========
>
> The voter responds to the call for vote with an expression of support,
> opposition, or abstention. The exact way to express the voter's position
> is listed below:
>
> * +1 a vote supporting the subject
> * +0 a vote abstaining from the subject (but showing some support).
> * -0 a vote abstaining from the subject (but showing disapproval).
> * -1 a vote opposing the subject
>
> <added author="SM">
> Any opposive vote must contain a detailed description of the reasoning
> that led to that vote and potentially indicate an alternative proposal
> that he/she would favor.
> </added>
I'm pretty -/+0 on these +/-0 PMC votes ;)
Seriously: they only serve to influence others, but do not help in
reaching a decision. I would stick to:
+1 : agree
O : abstain
-1 : disagree
Anyway, do these +/-0 votes count in reaching a quorum?
We should think carefully about adding the *requirement* for a detailed
description for an opposite vote. IMHO, votes are there for situations
where lazy consensus doesn't work, i.e. when people disagree. PMC votes
are there for other reasons as well (see above), but still, a vote is
being held when important points are raised, or directional discussions
exists. Given the project only exists within a community, continued
development will depend on a majority of people stating support for a
certain direction. That doesn't mean the minority (the -1'ers) should go
at length explaining themselves before their vote is valid. Just some
thought.
<snip type="agree"/>
> Quorum
> ------
>
> For all votes, there must be at least three (3) voters and half (1/2) of
> the PMC must cast a vote.
Why don't we simply say: half of the PMC must vote?
> After the Vote
> ==============
>
> When the vote is closed, the results of the vote are summarized by the
> Vote Administrator. The vote administrator will send an email to the
> Avalon developers or PMC list with the text "[PMC:VOTE-RESULT]" in the
^^^^^^ ^^
and?
<snip type="agree"/>
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org