On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes >> >> On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>>> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes >>>> >>>> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." >>>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>>>>>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people >>>>>>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having >> veto >>>>>>> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on >> this >>>>>>> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that >> personnel >>>>>>> votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes >> allowed. >>>>>> >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> The argument is very simple, you don't allow a simple >> majority to >>>>>> tyrannize the minority. So the ASF has long held a simple >> standard >>>>>> of consensus on all committee additions and subtractions. >> Some >>>>>> majority might be irked at [insert name here]'s >> [actions|inaction| >>>>>> comments|silence] but that was never grounds to remove a >> committee >>>>>> member. If you want to propose some supermajority metric >> other than >>>>>> "unanimous", that could work (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4 in >> agreement >>>>> >>>>> In your plan then a -1 is really a -2 or -3? >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like a filibuster... >>>> >>>> No, I'm -1 to this proposal. I'd support his proposal if it >> were >>>> modified to provide for a measurable super-majority consensus. >>> >>> Define supermajority in a way that isn't patently absurd and perhaps >>> I'll consider amending it. >> >> 2/3. 3/4. Take your pick. I'd argue on the high end. Consider that >> to defeat a 3/4 supermajority consisting of 9 votes requires more than >> 2 people against. This committee has an order of magnitude more voters. >> Simple obstructionism is easy to deal with. > > Oh, so you want a supermajority in terms of those who have voted, not in > terms of the membership of the IPMC? Not unreasonable. Let's see what > others think.
Seems reasonable to me as well. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
