Le jeu. 6 mai 2021 à 07:53, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a écrit : > > > > On May 5, 2021, at 11:13 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le mer. 5 mai 2021 à 17:44, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a > > écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >>> On May 5, 2021, at 6:38 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Le mar. 4 mai 2021 à 02:49, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a > >>> écrit : > >>>> > >>>> I apologize. I started another thread regarding the vote before seeing > >>>> this. > >>> > >>> No problem. > >>> > >>>> Maybe that will get more attention? > >>> > >>> It doesn't seem so. :-} > >>> > >>> IMHO, valid answers have been given to the statements/questions > >>> from people who didn't vote +1. > >>> The very low turnout makes the arithmetics of the result fairly > >>> subjective... > >>> > >>> The optimistic view is that > >>> 1. most people don't care (that the repository is created), > >>> 2. there is no reason to doubt the infos provided by actual users of > >>> those codes, > >>> 3. there is an embryo of a community (perhaps not viable, but only > >>> the future can tell...),[1] > >>> 4. the same kind of welcoming gestures should apply for the proposed > >>> contributions, as for the attempt to resuscitate "Commons Graph"[2], > >>> even if some of the PMC might arguably prefer another option. > >> > >> Regardless, following https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> indicates that this vote > >> is not going to pass. > > > > How so? > > [It's not about a code change; and no "technical argument" can be invoked.] > > It looks like you didn’t read the page.
I did, of course. And my interpretation differs. > For clarity I am copying it here > > "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 <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> > for a modifying factor.)" > > > So a procedural vote requires a majority. There is a small majority (irrespective of the binding vs non-binding categories). > But note that it also calls out that if the number of voters > seems too small then the issue is usually not pursued. "usually"... In Commons, the number of votes has always been low, in proportion of the official number of committers. No surprise that, for very specific functionalities, it is even lower. However the main point should rather have been whether the perspective exists that someone will do the work for getting a chance for a community to ever exist. In the case of ML algorithms, a discussion started that has involved 4 people (among them 2 PMC people); this is largely more than the "usual" attendance about any one specific component's issue. > Both of these describe this situation perfectly. > The vote did not get a majority of binding votes (it was a tie) and the > number of votes was very small. > > > > > >> You can’t assert lazy consensus on an explicit vote. If you had started > >> this as a lazy consensus vote it > >> is likely it would have still gotten a -1 vote since both Sebb and > >> Emmanuel have voice opposition. > > > > > > A "veto" does not apply here. > > Hence my remark on the "arithmetics" since the total tally is slightly > > "pro" although the PMC tally is slightly "con”. > > Where did I use the word “veto”? I never used the word “veto”. I was trying to figure out how you reached your conclusion from the page which you referred to (i.e. how a "-1" vote would be sufficient). > There are essentially 3 ways to vote, > Yes, No, and Abstain. In a procedural vote + or -1 represent an abstention. > Anything less than 0 is > a No and anything greater is a Yes. So saying there were -1 votes implies > there are “No” votes and > therefore there is no consensus. Oliver reminded us that "[...] every committer can start a new component [in the sandbox]". Your interpration of the procedural vote seems to mean that anyone else can prevent such an initiative. Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
