I guess my thought is that if you are going to strengthen the rules for PMC then the Chair should be as well.
This is the Leader of the Free (CloudStack) world you know. ;-) Matt On 7/26/13 12:33 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >The by-laws already stipulate lazy 2/3 majority for the Chair. > >Chip is proposing that the same applies to committers and PMC members. > >I see no reason to make it any more complex than that. > > >On 24 July 2013 18:33, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I think I >> would want to be voted in. >> >> For Committer - 2/3 Lazy >> This makes sure that at least 2 people basically nominated, and seconded >> and the votes were 2:1 in favor of the person coming in. >> >> For PMC - 3/4 Lazy >> This is the leadership of the project and there needs to be a true >> consensus and not just a majority to bring someone in. This allows for a >> higher consensus to be reached. >> >> For Chairman (I think you guys missed this one, maybe it was applied) - >> 3/4 Lazy with no -1 Binding Veto >> The PMC has to be in Consensus and there can't really be a major dissent >> in my thought process. Veto also requires a through explanation why. >> >> 2 cents, >> Matt >> >> >> >> On 7/19/13 1:27 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >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 >> >> > > >-- >NS
