You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2013/10/14 00:11:00 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3E from which I quote below:
"Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively agree).
Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some other set of bylaws."
As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> Phil,
>
> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>
> "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 for a modifying factor.)"
>
> I got this information from:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> (consensus != unanimous).
>
> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> your concerns.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>>
>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>> everyone's vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the too
>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try releasing a
>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we have
>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The problem is
>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things ready
>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of the
>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>
>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while back.
>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
James,
You succeeded in creating a second thread.
It is the first thread that had a reverted subject line. Ironically, it
was one of your posts that reverted the subject line ... likely related to
the confusion you had in the first place with gmail.
Check the archives. They show the subject lines.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
> There were two threads. As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
> threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
> for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> > > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3EfromwhichI quote below:
> > >
> > > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> > > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > > agree).
> > >
> > > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> > HTTP
> > > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > > other set of bylaws."
> > > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> > > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means
> everyone
> > > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> > be
> > > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> > >
> > > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> > says
> > > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
> > the
> > > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or
> > a
> > > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> > > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > > >
> > > > "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 for a modifying factor.)"
> > > >
> > > > I got this information from:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > >
> > > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > > >
> > > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > > any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> > > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> > > > your concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see
> it
> > > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1s
> > > >>> James Carman
> > > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > >>> Matt Benson
> > > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > > >>> Gary Gregory
> > > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > > >>> Oliver Heger
> > > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -1s
> > > >>> Mark Thomas
> > > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0.5
> > > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +0
> > > >>> Ralph Goers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -0
> > > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.
> We
> > > >>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page
> for
> > > >>> that.
> > > >>
> > > >> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> > > >> clearly not the c
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
There were two threads. As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).
On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
> > you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
> >
> > "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> > resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> > Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
> > in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> > agree).
> >
> > Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> > Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> > other set of bylaws."
> > As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> > must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
> > must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> > at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >
> > Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> > "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> > binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> > httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or
> a
> > majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
> > is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> > believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> > >
> > > "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 for a modifying factor.)"
> > >
> > > I got this information from:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > > (consensus != unanimous).
> > >
> > > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > > any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> > > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> > > your concerns.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> > >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> > >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> > >>>
> > >>> +1s
> > >>> James Carman
> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>> Matt Benson
> > >>> Benedikt Ritter
> > >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> > >>> Gary Gregory
> > >>> Luc Maisonobe
> > >>> Oliver Heger
> > >>> Christian Grobmeier
> > >>> Torsten Curdt
> > >>>
> > >>> -1s
> > >>> Mark Thomas
> > >>> Thomas Vandahl
> > >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> > >>> Gilles Sadowski
> > >>> Jorg Schaible
> > >>>
> > >>> +0.5
> > >>> Olivier Lamy
> > >>>
> > >>> +0
> > >>> Ralph Goers
> > >>>
> > >>> -0
> > >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> > >>>
> > >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> > >>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> > >>> that.
> > >>
> > >> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> > >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> > >> clearly not the c
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
OK - sorry for misunderstanding you. It appears we are in agreement and my use of "majority" in that sentence is incorrect. The wording I quoted from the httpd page is much clearer (at least 3 +1 votes and no vetoes).
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.
>
> But where you say
>
> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.
>
>
> I disagree. The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
> 3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
>> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point
>> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
>> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
>> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph,
>>>
>>> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
>>> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>>>
>>> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
>>> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
>> git).
>>> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>>>
>>> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
>>> votes.
>>>
>>> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
>> problem.
>>> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
>>> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
>>> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
>>> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
>>> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
>>> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>>>
>>> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
>> the
>>> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
>>> subject a number of times:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
>> General
>>>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
>>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
>>>>
>>>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>>>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>>>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
>> things
>>>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>>>> agree).
>>>>
>>>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
>> HTTP
>>>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>>>> other set of bylaws."
>>>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
>> there
>>>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means
>> everyone
>>>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
>> be
>>>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
>> says
>>>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>>>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
>> the
>>>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
>> or a
>>>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
>> git
>>>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>>>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "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 for a modifying factor.)"
>>>>>
>>>>> I got this information from:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>>>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
>>>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
>>>>> your concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1s
>>>>>>> James Carman
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1s
>>>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0
>>>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>>>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
>> big
>>>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the
>> fun
>>>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>>>> back.
>>>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about
>> BU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>>>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Ralph,
I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.
But where you say
As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.
I disagree. The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point
> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> >> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
> >>
> >> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> >> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> >> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> >> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> >> agree).
> >>
> >> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> >> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> >> other set of bylaws."
> >> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> >> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means
> everyone
> >> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> >> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >>
> >> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> >> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> >> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> >> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or a
> >> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> >> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> >> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Phil,
> >>>
> >>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >>>
> >>> "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 for a modifying factor.)"
> >>>
> >>> I got this information from:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >>>
> >>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> >>> (consensus != unanimous).
> >>>
> >>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> >>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> >>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> >>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> >>> your concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> >>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1s
> >>>>> James Carman
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Matt Benson
> >>>>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>>>> Oliver Heger
> >>>>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1s
> >>>>> Mark Thomas
> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>>>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>>>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0.5
> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0
> >>>>> Ralph Goers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -0
> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> >>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
> >>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>>>> everyone's vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> James
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
> all
> >>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> >> too
> >>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
> >> releasing a
> >>>>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
> big
> >>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
> >> have
> >>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
> >> problem is
> >>>>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> >> ready
> >>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
> >> the
> >>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the
> fun
> >>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> >>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> >> back.
> >>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about
> BU.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Benedikt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> >> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.
> I
> >>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
Ralph
On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>>
>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>> agree).
>>
>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>> other set of bylaws."
>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>
>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the
>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>
>>> "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 for a modifying factor.)"
>>>
>>> I got this information from:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>
>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
>>> your concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>> have
>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>> problem is
>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 10/13/13 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
Get real, Ted. The thread had diverged into general discussion. I
did not see it as a serious VOTE at that point and I stand by my
statements that any assertion that it established "consensus" is
incorrect.
Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>>
>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>> agree).
>>
>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>> other set of bylaws."
>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>
>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the
>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>
>>> "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 for a modifying factor.)"
>>>
>>> I got this information from:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>
>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
>>> your concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>> have
>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
>> problem is
>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>> james@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Ralph,
Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
votes.
That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote
has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
See
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
This is the point that Phil first commented.
On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
subject a number of times:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>
> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> agree).
>
> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> other set of bylaws."
> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone
> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>
> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the
> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Phil,
> >
> > While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >
> > "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 for a modifying factor.)"
> >
> > I got this information from:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> > (consensus != unanimous).
> >
> > However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> > any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the
> > test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> > vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses
> > your concerns.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it
> >>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>
> >>> +1s
> >>> James Carman
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> Matt Benson
> >>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>> Gary Gregory
> >>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>> Oliver Heger
> >>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>
> >>> -1s
> >>> Mark Thomas
> >>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>
> >>> +0.5
> >>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>
> >>> +0
> >>> Ralph Goers
> >>>
> >>> -0
> >>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>
> >>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We
> >>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote
> >>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>> everyone's vote.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
> >>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> too
> >>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
> releasing a
> >>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
> >>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we
> have
> >>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The
> problem is
> >>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> ready
> >>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of
> the
> >>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
> >>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release?
> >>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> back.
> >>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
> >>>>
> >>>> Benedikt
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I
> >>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>