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/%3ca9d202a4-6e76-42d8-9606-1e40d6916...@gmail.com%3E > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c08688247-b00e-44c7-8b21-f107921b4...@gmail.com%3E > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c5256ff12.3070...@gmail.com%3E > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c110b24a9-dd67-436d-9e2d-e29521693...@gmail.com%3E > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c110b24a9-dd67-436d-9e2d-e29521693...@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.go...@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 <phil.ste...@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
