You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2013/11/09 22:43:40 UTC
[DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Hi,
Please place all discussion here and not in the vote thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I understand that:
> - if the resolution requires a minimal number of votes (all except "Lazy consensus"), then the voting period is automatically extended until enough votes or cancelled.
> - if the resolution is on "lazy consensus", the voting is closed after 72 hours.
Yes. With the possible exception of code vetos, you can veto a code check in after 72 hours have passed. Obviously it's better if the veto it sooner than later, sometime issue are not found until we're building/testing the next release candidate.
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Maurice Amsellem <ma...@systar.com>.
Voting section says:
" Voting is open for 72 hours unless otherwise specified. [...]
If 72 hours pass and there's not enough votes for a resolution voting continues until cancelled or until there are enough votes for a resolution."
I understand that:
- if the resolution requires a minimal number of votes (all except "Lazy consensus"), then the voting period is automatically extended until enough votes or cancelled.
- if the resolution is on "lazy consensus", the voting is closed after 72 hours.
Is that correct ?
Maurice
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
Envoyé : samedi 9 novembre 2013 22:44
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Hi,
Please place all discussion here and not in the vote thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Should there be a description of the "Apache Way' or link to it?
Good suggestion + I did consider this. The only official link I could find was this [1], which is a work under progress and doesn't actually give you a lot of information about what the Apache Way is. The current "how it works" and "guide to participation" links contain better information IMO.
This is this link which is much better, but not sure of it's official status.
http://theapacheway.com
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://incubator.apache.org/learn/theapacheway.html
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Chris Velevitch <ch...@gmail.com>.
> The responsibilities of an committer include - Upholding and promoting
the Apache Way
Should there be a description of the "Apache Way' or link to it?
Chris
--
Chris Velevitch
Manager - Adobe Platform Users Group, Sydney
m: 0415 469 095
www.apugs.org.au
Adobe Platform Users Group, Sydney
Topic: TBD
Date: Monday, 25th November
Details and RSVP on http://www.meetup.com/Sydney-Adobe-Platform-User-Group
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I'm ready to vote +1.
EdB
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Justin Mclean
<ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Especially the 'until enough votes' reads like after 72 hrs, the first
>> vote that defines 'enough' will close the vote...
> That is actually OK by me, otherwise people could keep the vote open until they get the result they want.
>
>> Also, in the section 'Vetoes', I'd change the second sentence to:
>> "A veto is only valid if it is accompanied by a reasonable explanation."
> Done but left out the word "reasonable", that's open to interpretation and a veto doesn't actually have to be reasonable :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Especially the 'until enough votes' reads like after 72 hrs, the first
> vote that defines 'enough' will close the vote...
That is actually OK by me, otherwise people could keep the vote open until they get the result they want.
> Also, in the section 'Vetoes', I'd change the second sentence to:
> "A veto is only valid if it is accompanied by a reasonable explanation."
Done but left out the word "reasonable", that's open to interpretation and a veto doesn't actually have to be reasonable :-)
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Hi,
I've made some minor edits to the Wiki, for reading ease and clarification.
The only 'big' thing is the language in the 'Voting timeframes'
section. The way it's written now has some loopholes in it, I think.
Especially the 'until enough votes' reads like after 72 hrs, the first
vote that defines 'enough' will close the vote... I suggest replacing
the second paragraphs with the following:
"After the designated voting period the vote will continue until the
caller of the vote either declares the result or revokes the vote."
(please correct for proper English)
Also, in the section 'Vetoes', I'd change the second sentence to:
"A veto is only valid if it is accompanied by a reasonable explanation."
Otherwise, it looks solid, is easy to read and understand and should
cover most 'use cases'. Excellent work.
EdB
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Change made.
>
>> I think it would be good enough to install and see what happens.
> If we change the file we need a new vote just like any other release candidate.
>
>> You might want to wait for Erik's input.
> I'll wait for that.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Change made.
> I think it would be good enough to install and see what happens.
If we change the file we need a new vote just like any other release candidate.
> You might want to wait for Erik's input.
I'll wait for that.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/10/13 9:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Any other issues or should I make that change and call another RC vote?
I think it would be good enough to install and see what happens. You
might want to wait for Erik's input.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I figured as much. Interesting that Australian voting is mandatory.
We're not the only country to do that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
> Anyway, how about this:
>
> "Majority Approval and 2/3 Majority Approval is based on the number of
> votes cast, not on the number of eligible voters."
Sound fine to me.
Any other issues or should I make that change and call another RC vote?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/10/13 4:29 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Meant to say there:
>"rather NOT introduce an unfamiliar or new term."
I figured as much. Interesting that Australian voting is mandatory.
Anyway, how about this:
"Majority Approval and 2/3 Majority Approval is based on the number of
votes cast, not on the number of eligible voters."
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Meant to say there:
"rather NOT introduce an unfamiliar or new term."
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Erik suggested adding "of the votes cast".
Which I don't think works, also not 100% sure where he wanted that phase added.
If we say changed it to this:
"Having more than half of the votes cast of total votes is not required with Majority votes."
Is confusing as the number of votes cast is the same as the total number of votes.
If you take it to mean +1s then it's actually false in most cases eg example results 12x +1, 5x -1 > 50% +1's or 5 +1s, 2 -1s also > 50% +1s .
It may be cultural issue here. In Australia voting is compulsory, so the term Majority means more than 50% of total voters. The word quorum is used when it's not a majority required but I'd rather than introduce an unfamiliar or new term.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Erik suggested adding "of the votes cast". You argued against it, but I
didn't understand the argument. I think "of the votes cast" would solve
the problem.
-Alex
On 11/10/13 2:05 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Maybe it is just me, but "total committers voting" is the number who
>> voted, not the number eligible to vote.
>
>Any suggestions on better wording? As the Lazy was remove we need
>something there.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Maybe it is just me, but "total committers voting" is the number who
> voted, not the number eligible to vote.
Any suggestions on better wording? As the Lazy was remove we need something there.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/9/13 11:40 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> If it was a vote among the committers, then more than half of the
>> committers who vote is definitely required.
>That's why the word total was in there, total = total number != number
>who vote.
Maybe it is just me, but "total committers voting" is the number who
voted, not the number eligible to vote.
>
>> IMO, the definition says that 3 +1's is the minimum, so not sure we
>>really
>> need this.
>We could do with out it but what to avoid confusion re what a majority
>is, as I said it has been misunderstood.
Sure it would be nice to make it more clear, but to me, these words aren't
helping.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> If it was a vote among the committers, then more than half of the
> committers who vote is definitely required.
That's why the word total was in there, total = total number != number who vote.
> IMO, the definition says that 3 +1's is the minimum, so not sure we really
> need this.
We could do with out it but what to avoid confusion re what a majority is, as I said it has been misunderstood.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS ] Apache Flex guidelines RC2 - discussion
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I'm ok with everything but this line:
"More than half the total PMC members or committers voting is not required
with Majority votes."
If it was a vote among the committers, then more than half of the
committers who vote is definitely required.
IMO, the definition says that 3 +1's is the minimum, so not sure we really
need this. Or you could say:
"More than half the total PMC members or committers eligible to vote is
not required with Majority votes."
But even then, that sounds like a quorum description and the definitions
already define the quorum at 3 or so.
On 11/9/13 1:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Please place all discussion here and not in the vote thread.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>