Specifically, Chip is calling for us to change committer / PMC votes from "lazy consensus" to "2/3 majority". (That is, the vote type for that specific decision making process changes, but the vote type definitions are left alone.)
On 19 July 2013 17:32, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > > There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus. Are > we > > discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes? > > New committer and PMC membership. > > sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the $subject: > new committer / new PMC member votes only. > > > > > On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "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? > > > > > -- NS
