You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mxnet.apache.org by Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> on 2018/10/29 22:46:45 UTC
[VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
This vote is to adopt the document
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
to replace the current document
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
The dev discussion thread is here
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
<https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
modifying factor.)
The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
Thanks,
Carin
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Yuan Tang <te...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>
wrote:
> +1
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > to replace the current document
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> >
> > The dev discussion thread is here
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless
> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> typically
> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > modifying factor.)
> >
> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carin
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Tianqi Chen <tq...@cs.washington.edu>.
+1
Tianqi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Sebastian <ss...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
On 30.10.18 12:37, Steffen Rochel wrote:
> +1 non-binding
> Thanks for driving the vote Carin!
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:31 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure PPMC stands for Podling Project Management Committee -
>> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - I updated the document to
>> have ",(Podling Project Management Committee)," in the both sections with
>> a link where the abbreviation is first introduced.
>>
>> - Carin
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:09 PM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 non-binding
>>> One minor thing first: can you define PPMC in the doc? It's brought in
>>> without saying what it stands for. Even the link it goes to just talks
>>> about PMC and there's no mention of PMCC... so I'm not sure what the
>>> definition is.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:07 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the feedback in the thread. I changed the wording of "Privileges"
>> to
>>>> "Rights and Responsibilities".
>>>>
>>>> If I misunderstood anything, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Carin
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here my two cents to the discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
>>>>> foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less
>>>> effort
>>>>> in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones.
>>> The
>>>>> easier the project is managed, normally the better the community
>>> evolves.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have
>>>> more
>>>>> "privileges", but "responsibilities".
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote is to adopt the document
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>>>>>> to replace the current document
>>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dev discussion thread is here
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
>> rule
>>>>> unless
>>>>>> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
>>>>>> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>> regardless
>>>>> of
>>>>>> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
>>> too
>>>>>> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
>>>>> typically
>>>>>> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>>>>>> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for
>> a
>>>>>> modifying factor.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Carin
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Steffen Rochel <st...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding
Thanks for driving the vote Carin!
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:31 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure PPMC stands for Podling Project Management Committee -
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - I updated the document to
> have ",(Podling Project Management Committee)," in the both sections with
> a link where the abbreviation is first introduced.
>
> - Carin
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:09 PM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 non-binding
> > One minor thing first: can you define PPMC in the doc? It's brought in
> > without saying what it stands for. Even the link it goes to just talks
> > about PMC and there's no mention of PMCC... so I'm not sure what the
> > definition is.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:07 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From the feedback in the thread. I changed the wording of "Privileges"
> to
> > > "Rights and Responsibilities".
> > >
> > > If I misunderstood anything, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Carin
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
> > > >
> > > > Here my two cents to the discussion:
> > > >
> > > > You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
> > > > foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less
> > > effort
> > > > in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones.
> > The
> > > > easier the project is managed, normally the better the community
> > evolves.
> > > >
> > > > In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have
> > > more
> > > > "privileges", but "responsibilities".
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This vote is to adopt the document
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > > > to replace the current document
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > > >
> > > > > The dev discussion thread is here
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
> rule
> > > > unless
> > > > > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless
> > > > of
> > > > > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
> > too
> > > > > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > > > typically
> > > > > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > > > > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for
> a
> > > > > modifying factor.)
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Carin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>.
Sure PPMC stands for Podling Project Management Committee -
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - I updated the document to
have ",(Podling Project Management Committee)," in the both sections with
a link where the abbreviation is first introduced.
- Carin
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:09 PM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 non-binding
> One minor thing first: can you define PPMC in the doc? It's brought in
> without saying what it stands for. Even the link it goes to just talks
> about PMC and there's no mention of PMCC... so I'm not sure what the
> definition is.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:07 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From the feedback in the thread. I changed the wording of "Privileges" to
> > "Rights and Responsibilities".
> >
> > If I misunderstood anything, please let me know.
> >
> > Best,
> > Carin
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
> > >
> > > Here my two cents to the discussion:
> > >
> > > You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
> > > foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less
> > effort
> > > in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones.
> The
> > > easier the project is managed, normally the better the community
> evolves.
> > >
> > > In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have
> > more
> > > "privileges", but "responsibilities".
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This vote is to adopt the document
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > > to replace the current document
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > >
> > > > The dev discussion thread is here
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > > > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > unless
> > > > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless
> > > of
> > > > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
> too
> > > > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > > typically
> > > > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > > > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > > > modifying factor.)
> > > >
> > > > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Carin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding
One minor thing first: can you define PPMC in the doc? It's brought in
without saying what it stands for. Even the link it goes to just talks
about PMC and there's no mention of PMCC... so I'm not sure what the
definition is.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:07 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the feedback in the thread. I changed the wording of "Privileges" to
> "Rights and Responsibilities".
>
> If I misunderstood anything, please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Carin
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
> >
> > Here my two cents to the discussion:
> >
> > You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
> > foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less
> effort
> > in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones. The
> > easier the project is managed, normally the better the community evolves.
> >
> > In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have
> more
> > "privileges", but "responsibilities".
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This vote is to adopt the document
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > to replace the current document
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > >
> > > The dev discussion thread is here
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > unless
> > > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> > of
> > > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > typically
> > > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > > modifying factor.)
> > >
> > > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Carin
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>.
From the feedback in the thread. I changed the wording of "Privileges" to
"Rights and Responsibilities".
If I misunderstood anything, please let me know.
Best,
Carin
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
>
> Here my two cents to the discussion:
>
> You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
> foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less effort
> in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones. The
> easier the project is managed, normally the better the community evolves.
>
> In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have more
> "privileges", but "responsibilities".
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > to replace the current document
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> >
> > The dev discussion thread is here
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless
> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> typically
> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > modifying factor.)
> >
> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carin
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
+1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
Here my two cents to the discussion:
You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less effort
in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt the general ones. The
easier the project is managed, normally the better the community evolves.
In addition, as a linguistic detail: commiters and/or pmc do not have more
"privileges", but "responsibilities".
Cheers,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 15:47 Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding. As mentioned in various threads, this model should be much
more scalable. I like the idea of hierarchies of contributors on the
project.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>.
-0 but keep it in if you want
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that after
> a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying to
> just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
> before, actually.
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
>> natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we should
>> start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try to
>> agree to start a nuclear war.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carin:
>>> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down
>>> the
>>> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
>>>
>>> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus
>>> with
>>> discussion when possible."
>>>
>>> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
>>> rights.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Tianqi
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This vote is to adopt the document
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>>> > to replace the current document
>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>>> >
>>> > The dev discussion thread is here
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>> >
>>> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>>> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>> >
>>> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>> unless
>>> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
>>> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>> regardless of
>>> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
>>> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
>>> typically
>>> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>>> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
>>> > modifying factor.)
>>> >
>>> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Carin
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
Feel free to change to "rights" if that is more welcoming and suits better.
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:24 PM, Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Also from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html there is no
> mention of the word "privileges", maybe "right" is a better term.
>
> I feel there is some wisdom in choose not to emphasize the entitlements
> being given in the role. After all, the PMC/committership is given by the
> community, and the main job of PMC/committer is to use the power serve the
> community well. And we should choose wisely as our actions have
> consequences, and the community is watching
>
> Tianqi
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I recall from what Jim said
>>
>> "The ASF strives for consensus, and votes and voting are used, primarily,
>> to gauge that. It's not used to divide a community; it's used to UNITE it.
>> Voting is used when collaboration and consensus building *FAILS*. It should
>> be rare."
>>
>> In this context, we all agree that when a veto vote occurs everyone should
>> respect it and not kick a dead horse. On the other hand, the
>> PMC/committers should be cautious when using this power, as the community
>> should always encourage reach consensus via reasonable technical discussion
>> first.
>>
>> As with all the ML models, every guideline can be interpreted in an
>> adversarial fashion but I hope we can have a goodwill to build toward a
>> positive sum collaboration.
>>
>> Tianqi
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:01 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The committer/PMC privileges is derived from
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
>>>
>>> The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote
>>> is
>>> against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect
>>> those who differ with the vote to take that as feedback, if there are
>>> corrections to be made in the understanding, they respectfully clarify
>>> that
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> I agree with Chris, we have seen in the past where discussions have gone
>>> on
>>> and on for a long time when there were disagreements until people gave up,
>>> This leads to frustration and less participation by members - this is also
>>> an ultimate productivity killer. You can see why some of the discuss
>>> threads go quiet and die.
>>>
>>> I am all for discussion and reaching consensus but at some point one must
>>> realize its just kicking a dead horse and turns into an endurance contest
>>> rather than a discussion. We should be careful on the expectations we set
>>> in regard to how we reach consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:18 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to
>>> keep
>>>> discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
>>>> someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to
>>> push,
>>>> right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
>>>> this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the
>>> “bad
>>>> guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could
>>> be
>>>> abused.
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we
>>> can
>>>>> have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time
>>> limit
>>>>> on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
>>>>> discussion was wrapped up.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Carin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that
>>>>> after
>>>>>> a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject
>>>> trying
>>>>> to
>>>>>> just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen
>>>> this
>>>>>> before, actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <
>>> cjolivier01@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus
>>> is
>>>> the
>>>>>>> natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that
>>> we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should
>>> all
>>>> try
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> agree to start a nuclear war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Carin:
>>>>>>>> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write
>>>> down
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional
>>> line:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach
>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> discussion when possible."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing
>>>> veto
>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Tianqi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <
>>> carinmeier@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This vote is to adopt the document
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>>>>>>>>> to replace the current document
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The dev discussion thread is here
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>>>>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
>>>> rule
>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>> than
>>>>>>>>> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes
>>>> seems
>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue
>>> is
>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>> modifying factor.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Carin
>>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>.
Also from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html there is no
mention of the word "privileges", maybe "right" is a better term.
I feel there is some wisdom in choose not to emphasize the entitlements
being given in the role. After all, the PMC/committership is given by the
community, and the main job of PMC/committer is to use the power serve the
community well. And we should choose wisely as our actions have
consequences, and the community is watching
Tianqi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
> As far as I recall from what Jim said
>
> "The ASF strives for consensus, and votes and voting are used, primarily,
> to gauge that. It's not used to divide a community; it's used to UNITE it.
> Voting is used when collaboration and consensus building *FAILS*. It should
> be rare."
>
> In this context, we all agree that when a veto vote occurs everyone should
> respect it and not kick a dead horse. On the other hand, the
> PMC/committers should be cautious when using this power, as the community
> should always encourage reach consensus via reasonable technical discussion
> first.
>
> As with all the ML models, every guideline can be interpreted in an
> adversarial fashion but I hope we can have a goodwill to build toward a
> positive sum collaboration.
>
> Tianqi
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:01 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The committer/PMC privileges is derived from
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
>>
>> The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote
>> is
>> against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect
>> those who differ with the vote to take that as feedback, if there are
>> corrections to be made in the understanding, they respectfully clarify
>> that
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> I agree with Chris, we have seen in the past where discussions have gone
>> on
>> and on for a long time when there were disagreements until people gave up,
>> This leads to frustration and less participation by members - this is also
>> an ultimate productivity killer. You can see why some of the discuss
>> threads go quiet and die.
>>
>> I am all for discussion and reaching consensus but at some point one must
>> realize its just kicking a dead horse and turns into an endurance contest
>> rather than a discussion. We should be careful on the expectations we set
>> in regard to how we reach consensus.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:18 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to
>> keep
>> > discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
>> > someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to
>> push,
>> > right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
>> > this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the
>> “bad
>> > guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could
>> be
>> > abused.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Chris,
>> > >
>> > > Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we
>> can
>> > > have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time
>> limit
>> > > on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
>> > > discussion was wrapped up.
>> > >
>> > > - Carin
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that
>> > > after
>> > > > a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject
>> > trying
>> > > to
>> > > > just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen
>> > this
>> > > > before, actually.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <
>> cjolivier01@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus
>> is
>> > the
>> > > > > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that
>> we
>> > > > should
>> > > > > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should
>> all
>> > try
>> > > > to
>> > > > > agree to start a nuclear war.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Hi Carin:
>> > > > >> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write
>> > down
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional
>> line:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach
>> > consensus
>> > > > >> with
>> > > > >> discussion when possible."
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing
>> > veto
>> > > > >> rights.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Thanks!
>> > > > >> Tianqi
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <
>> carinmeier@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > This vote is to adopt the document
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>> > > > >> > to replace the current document
>> > > > >> >
>> > > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > The dev discussion thread is here
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>> > > > >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
>> > rule
>> > > > >> unless
>> > > > >> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>> than
>> > > > >> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>> > > > regardless
>> > > > >> of
>> > > > >> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes
>> > seems
>> > > > too
>> > > > >> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue
>> is
>> > > > >> typically
>> > > > >> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>> > > > >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
>> > for a
>> > > > >> > modifying factor.)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > > >> > Carin
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>.
As far as I recall from what Jim said
"The ASF strives for consensus, and votes and voting are used, primarily,
to gauge that. It's not used to divide a community; it's used to UNITE it.
Voting is used when collaboration and consensus building *FAILS*. It should
be rare."
In this context, we all agree that when a veto vote occurs everyone should
respect it and not kick a dead horse. On the other hand, the
PMC/committers should be cautious when using this power, as the community
should always encourage reach consensus via reasonable technical discussion
first.
As with all the ML models, every guideline can be interpreted in an
adversarial fashion but I hope we can have a goodwill to build toward a
positive sum collaboration.
Tianqi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:01 PM Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The committer/PMC privileges is derived from
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
>
> The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote is
> against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect
> those who differ with the vote to take that as feedback, if there are
> corrections to be made in the understanding, they respectfully clarify that
> misunderstanding.
>
> I agree with Chris, we have seen in the past where discussions have gone on
> and on for a long time when there were disagreements until people gave up,
> This leads to frustration and less participation by members - this is also
> an ultimate productivity killer. You can see why some of the discuss
> threads go quiet and die.
>
> I am all for discussion and reaching consensus but at some point one must
> realize its just kicking a dead horse and turns into an endurance contest
> rather than a discussion. We should be careful on the expectations we set
> in regard to how we reach consensus.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:18 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to keep
> > discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
> > someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to
> push,
> > right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
> > this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the “bad
> > guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could
> be
> > abused.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we
> can
> > > have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time
> limit
> > > on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
> > > discussion was wrapped up.
> > >
> > > - Carin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that
> > > after
> > > > a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject
> > trying
> > > to
> > > > just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen
> > this
> > > > before, actually.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is
> > the
> > > > > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all
> > try
> > > > to
> > > > > agree to start a nuclear war.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Carin:
> > > > >> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write
> > down
> > > > the
> > > > >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional
> line:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach
> > consensus
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> discussion when possible."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing
> > veto
> > > > >> rights.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > >> Tianqi
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > This vote is to adopt the document
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > > >> > to replace the current document
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The dev discussion thread is here
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > > > >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
> > rule
> > > > >> unless
> > > > >> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> than
> > > > >> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > > regardless
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes
> > seems
> > > > too
> > > > >> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue
> is
> > > > >> typically
> > > > >> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > > > >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
> > for a
> > > > >> > modifying factor.)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > Carin
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
The committer/PMC privileges is derived from
https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote is
against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect
those who differ with the vote to take that as feedback, if there are
corrections to be made in the understanding, they respectfully clarify that
misunderstanding.
I agree with Chris, we have seen in the past where discussions have gone on
and on for a long time when there were disagreements until people gave up,
This leads to frustration and less participation by members - this is also
an ultimate productivity killer. You can see why some of the discuss
threads go quiet and die.
I am all for discussion and reaching consensus but at some point one must
realize its just kicking a dead horse and turns into an endurance contest
rather than a discussion. We should be careful on the expectations we set
in regard to how we reach consensus.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:18 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to keep
> discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
> someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to push,
> right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
> this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the “bad
> guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could be
> abused.
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
> > have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
> > on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
> > discussion was wrapped up.
> >
> > - Carin
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that
> > after
> > > a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject
> trying
> > to
> > > just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen
> this
> > > before, actually.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is
> the
> > > > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we
> > > should
> > > > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all
> try
> > > to
> > > > agree to start a nuclear war.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Carin:
> > > >> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write
> down
> > > the
> > > >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
> > > >>
> > > >> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach
> consensus
> > > >> with
> > > >> discussion when possible."
> > > >>
> > > >> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing
> veto
> > > >> rights.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >> Tianqi
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > This vote is to adopt the document
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > >> > to replace the current document
> > > >> >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The dev discussion thread is here
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > > >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
> rule
> > > >> unless
> > > >> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > > >> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > > regardless
> > > >> of
> > > >> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes
> seems
> > > too
> > > >> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > > >> typically
> > > >> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > > >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus>
> for a
> > > >> > modifying factor.)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Carin
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>.
well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to keep
discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to push,
right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the “bad
guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could be
abused.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
> have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
> on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
> discussion was wrapped up.
>
> - Carin
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that
> after
> > a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying
> to
> > just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
> > before, actually.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
> > > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we
> > should
> > > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try
> > to
> > > agree to start a nuclear war.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Carin:
> > >> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down
> > the
> > >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
> > >>
> > >> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus
> > >> with
> > >> discussion when possible."
> > >>
> > >> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
> > >> rights.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >> Tianqi
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > This vote is to adopt the document
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > >> > to replace the current document
> > >> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > >> >
> > >> > The dev discussion thread is here
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> > >> >
> > >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >> >
> > >> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > >> unless
> > >> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > >> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless
> > >> of
> > >> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
> > too
> > >> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > >> typically
> > >> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > >> > modifying factor.)
> > >> >
> > >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Carin
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
May be we can adopt this.
https://struts.apache.org/bylaws.html#voting
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
> have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
> on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
> discussion was wrapped up.
>
> - Carin
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that after
>> a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying to
>> just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
>> before, actually.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
>>> natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we
>> should
>>> start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try
>> to
>>> agree to start a nuclear war.
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Carin:
>>>> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down
>> the
>>>> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
>>>>
>>>> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus
>>>> with
>>>> discussion when possible."
>>>>
>>>> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Tianqi
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This vote is to adopt the document
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>>>>> to replace the current document
>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>>>>>
>>>>> The dev discussion thread is here
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>>> unless
>>>>> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
>>>>> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>> regardless
>>>> of
>>>>> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
>> too
>>>>> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
>>>> typically
>>>>> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>>>>> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
>>>>> modifying factor.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Carin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
discussion was wrapped up.
- Carin
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that after
> a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying to
> just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
> before, actually.
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
> > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we
> should
> > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try
> to
> > agree to start a nuclear war.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Carin:
> >> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down
> the
> >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
> >>
> >> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus
> >> with
> >> discussion when possible."
> >>
> >> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
> >> rights.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Tianqi
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> >> > to replace the current document
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> >> >
> >> > The dev discussion thread is here
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >> >
> >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >> >
> >> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> >> unless
> >> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> >> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless
> >> of
> >> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems
> too
> >> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> >> typically
> >> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> >> > modifying factor.)
> >> >
> >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Carin
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>.
or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that after
a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying to
just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
before, actually.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
> natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we should
> start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try to
> agree to start a nuclear war.
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Carin:
>> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down the
>> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
>>
>> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus
>> with
>> discussion when possible."
>>
>> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
>> rights.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Tianqi
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This vote is to adopt the document
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>> > to replace the current document
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>> >
>> > The dev discussion thread is here
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>> >
>> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>> unless
>> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
>> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
>> of
>> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
>> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
>> typically
>> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
>> > modifying factor.)
>> >
>> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Carin
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>.
-1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we should
start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try to
agree to start a nuclear war.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Carin:
> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down the
> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
>
> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus with
> discussion when possible."
>
> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
> rights.
>
> Thanks!
> Tianqi
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > to replace the current document
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> >
> > The dev discussion thread is here
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless
> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> typically
> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > modifying factor.)
> >
> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carin
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>.
Tianqi - I added it the end of the document.
If anyone feels that they need more time to further discuss/revise the
changes, I'm fine with ending/suspending the current vote and resuming it
in the future to enable more collaboration.
Just let me know.
Best,
Carin
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Carin:
> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down the
> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
>
> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus with
> discussion when possible."
>
> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
> rights.
>
> Thanks!
> Tianqi
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > to replace the current document
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> >
> > The dev discussion thread is here
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless
> > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> typically
> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > modifying factor.)
> >
> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carin
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Tianqi Chen <tq...@apache.org>.
Hi Carin:
Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down the
PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
- "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus with
discussion when possible."
Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing veto
rights.
Thanks!
Tianqi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks everyone for your input and participation. Thanks to Carin for driving this.
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 6:07 AM, Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Reminder - vote ends tomorrow morning at 6:00 am EST
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:46 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This vote is to adopt the document
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
>> to replace the current document
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>>
>> The dev discussion thread is here
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>
>> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
>> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
>> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
>> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
>> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
>> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
>> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
>> modifying factor.)
>>
>> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Carin
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:08 AM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reminder - vote ends tomorrow morning at 6:00 am EST
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:46 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > to replace the current document
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> >
> > The dev discussion thread is here
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> of
> > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> typically
> > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> > modifying factor.)
> >
> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Carin
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com>.
Reminder - vote ends tomorrow morning at 6:00 am EST
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:46 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>
>
Re: [VOTE] - Adopt "Become a Committer and PPMC Member" Document
Posted by Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding. Thanks for driving this, looking forward to see the
positive impact.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:47 PM Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> The dev discussion thread is here
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
> otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
> the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
> not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus
> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a
> modifying factor.)
>
> The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST
>
> Thanks,
> Carin
>