I think we can reference https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In this scenario, a
> negative vote constitutes a veto , which the voting group (generally the PMC
> of a project) cannot override. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy
> consensus declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the
> full-stop nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal (non-lazy
> consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive votes and no
> negative votes in order to pass; if it fails to garner the requisite amount
> of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer either withdraws the proposal or
> modifies the code and resubmits it, or the proposal simply languishes as an
> open issue until someone gets around to removing it.
It seems that there is no need for three binding votes for code
modifications. If I am wrong, please point it out.
Thanks,
Zixuan
Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年6月21日周三 14:59写道：
>
> I'm not a committer or PMC member, so I can't comment on this.
>
> I am curious to know the difference between other Apache projects and other
> foundation projects, such as CNCF, if you know about it.
> Do you think the Apache Foundation's view on individuals, not part of a
> commercial entity, does not live up to today's state of affairs?
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:40 PM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > (" a lazy majority of at least 3 binding +1s votes")
> >
> > I don't think it's fair at this stage where majority Pulsar committers are
> > mostly part of one enterprise and only their PIP/PRs are moving forward and
> > PR/PIP created by other community members get blocked or not reviewed
> > without any major reasons. I can list down many different examples but I
> > don't want to start that destructive discussion for now but I strongly ask
> > to help other community members to let them contribute to Pulsar so, we can
> > grow Pulsar community and let Pulsar be at the stage where it has
> > committers from various different institutions and we have good number of
> > reviewers to review PIP/PR on time.
> > Right now, there are many examples where PRs are sitting unreviewed for a
> > long time and we have to fix it first by encouraging and having more
> > committers/reviewers across multiple organizations as a part of the Pulsar
> > community. So, this is not the right time to restrict and this is
> > indirectly making it difficult for many Pulsar committers and contributors
> > who don't belong to specific enterprises.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rajan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:14 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is just a reminder that PMC/Committers can only merge the PIP PR
> > when
> > > the vote thread is concluded and in a positive manner, as described (" a
> > > lazy
> > > majority of at least 3 binding +1s votes")
> > >
> > > So please, before clicking that merge button, double-check those two
> > > conditions
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Asaf
> > >
> >
