You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@hadoop.apache.org by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org> on 2012/11/13 00:53:10 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Thanks, Nicholas.
I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with STV
used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when voting
in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems than
it solves.
-- Owen
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>.
That sounds good to me.
On 11/15/12 8:44 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko" <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair.
>Or left for the board to choose.
>
>Thanks,
>--Konst
>
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Owen's proposal sounds good in general. There are slight variances of
>>STV. I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting
>>(http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting). We should add a link to
>>their wiki in our bylaws.
>>
>>
>> How about tiebreaker? What if there are only two candidates and they
>>get exactly the same number of votes?
>>
>>
>> Tsz-Wo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
>> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <ge...@hadoop.apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
>>
>> Vinod,
>>
>> I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select
>>them.
>> Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said
>>"However,
>> I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
>> not." I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
>> thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
>>
>> --Bobby
>>
>> On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli"
>><vi...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>+1 to Owen's suggestion.
>>>
>>>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates
>>>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See
>>>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are
>>>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect
>>>vetoes
>>>at all in this vote.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>+Vinod
>>>
>>>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the
>>>>apache
>>>> board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
>>>> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason
>>>>with
>>>> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
>>>> confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use
>>>>STV.
>>>> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
>>>> vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
>>>> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason
>>>>known
>>>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>>>valid
>>>> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
>>>> enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
>>>> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to
>>>>pick
>>>> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>>>>
>>>> -- Bobby
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote
>>>>>with
>>>>>STV
>>>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>>>voting
>>>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>>>than
>>>>> it solves.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Owen
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Konstantin Shvachko <sh...@gmail.com>.
The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair.
Or left for the board to choose.
Thanks,
--Konst
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Owen's proposal sounds good in general. There are slight variances of STV. I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting (http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting). We should add a link to their wiki in our bylaws.
>
>
> How about tiebreaker? What if there are only two candidates and they get exactly the same number of votes?
>
>
> Tsz-Wo
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <ge...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
>
> Vinod,
>
> I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them.
> Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said "However,
> I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
> not." I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
> thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <vi...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>+1 to Owen's suggestion.
>>
>>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates
>>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See
>>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are
>>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes
>>at all in this vote.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>+Vinod
>>
>>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>>
>>> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
>>> board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
>>> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
>>> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
>>> confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use
>>>STV.
>>> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
>>> vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
>>> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
>>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>>valid
>>> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
>>> enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
>>> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
>>> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>>>
>>> -- Bobby
>>>
>>> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>>>
>>>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with
>>>>STV
>>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>>voting
>>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>>than
>>>> it solves.
>>>>
>>>> -- Owen
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Eli Collins <el...@cloudera.com>.
Hey Nicholas,
See my comment on the vote thread to update the bylaws. Agree,
pointing to http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting is the right
thing. Doug pointed out to me offline that there's a project (Apache
Steve) for STV that they'll be switching to (currently only OpenTSV
IIUC).
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Owen's proposal sounds good in general. There are slight variances of STV. I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting (http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting). We should add a link to their wiki in our bylaws.
>
>
> How about tiebreaker? What if there are only two candidates and they get exactly the same number of votes?
>
>
> Tsz-Wo
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <ge...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
>
> Vinod,
>
> I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them.
> Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said "However,
> I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
> not." I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
> thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <vi...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>+1 to Owen's suggestion.
>>
>>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates
>>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See
>>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are
>>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes
>>at all in this vote.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>+Vinod
>>
>>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>>
>>> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
>>> board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
>>> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
>>> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
>>> confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use
>>>STV.
>>> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
>>> vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
>>> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
>>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>>valid
>>> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
>>> enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
>>> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
>>> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>>>
>>> -- Bobby
>>>
>>> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>>>
>>>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with
>>>>STV
>>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>>voting
>>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>>than
>>>> it solves.
>>>>
>>>> -- Owen
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Tsz Wo Sze <sz...@yahoo.com>.
Owen's proposal sounds good in general. There are slight variances of STV. I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting (http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting). We should add a link to their wiki in our bylaws.
How about tiebreaker? What if there are only two candidates and they get exactly the same number of votes?
Tsz-Wo
________________________________
From: Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <ge...@hadoop.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Vinod,
I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them.
Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said "However,
I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
not." I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
--Bobby
On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <vi...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
>
>+1 to Owen's suggestion.
>
>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates
>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See
>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are
>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes
>at all in this vote.
>
>Thanks,
>+Vinod
>
>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>
>> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
>> board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
>> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
>> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
>> confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use
>>STV.
>> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
>> vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
>> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>valid
>> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
>> enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
>> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
>> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>>
>> -- Bobby
>>
>> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>>
>>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with
>>>STV
>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>voting
>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>than
>>> it solves.
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Vinod,
I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them.
Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said "However,
I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
not." I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
--Bobby
On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <vi...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
>
>+1 to Owen's suggestion.
>
>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates
>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See
>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are
>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes
>at all in this vote.
>
>Thanks,
>+Vinod
>
>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>
>> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
>> board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
>> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
>> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
>> confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use
>>STV.
>> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
>> vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
>> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>valid
>> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
>> enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
>> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
>> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>>
>> -- Bobby
>>
>> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>>
>>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with
>>>STV
>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>voting
>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>than
>>> it solves.
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vi...@hortonworks.com>.
+1 to Owen's suggestion.
Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes at all in this vote.
Thanks,
+Vinod
On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
> board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
> confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use STV.
> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
> vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is valid
> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
> enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>
> -- Bobby
>
> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>
>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with STV
>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when voting
>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems than
>> it solves.
>>
>> -- Owen
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Posted by Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>.
The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC
member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use STV.
However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is valid
enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what
voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
one that can handle one or more candidates.
-- Bobby
On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
>Thanks, Nicholas.
>
>I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with STV
>used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when voting
>in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems than
>it solves.
>
>-- Owen