On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I > know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's > a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as: > >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no >> binding -1 votes. > > I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to > use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as: > >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes. > > Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change?
So despite this arising from a discussion I originated, I am not sure I want to see this go away. As frustrating as it is to, we are a community built on consensus, and even if we can't get that around adding PMC and committer votes, I am not sure that it's wise to add new folks. Requiring no dissent is a powerful enabler for individuals, even if it occasionally thwarts the will of the majority. Having seen other projects with a majority rules approach to this, I don't see them as better off. While I might disagree with some of my fellow PMC members, I still respect their decision, and hope that when I am the person casting a -1, they'll respect mine as well. --David
