Christian My opinion only...
1. 172 PPMC members is a lot (I'm assuming you mean PPMC) (IPMC is defined here: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html). As far as I know, PPMC members is a superset of committers. Even here, PPMC votes and Committer votes are separate: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html . As it notes, it should be a goal to have all committers particular in the PPMC. Were all of this committers votes in separately? I think though in order to show your merit you need to make it up as a committer first, bringing in features/bug fixes. Since this is a software community it's essentially the easiest way to show your merits. 2. I believe most if not all follow the weighted vote approach. One -1 doesn't turn something down, unless that was the only vote. Based on this, if someone rarely participates wouldn't their vote hold less weight (unless they made a compelling argument that swayed others to vote -1). On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion > on how we vote on nominated IPMC members. > > We had the case were one person was nominated and received three +1. > Another voter had concerns an voted -1. The vote has been marked as > failed, because no consensus could be found. > > Now this was my understanding and I was surprised that the vote failed: > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule > unless otherwise stated." > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > Joe brought this up before around 14 months: > http://s.apache.org/majorityinipmc > > We have not found a consens, but one might highlight Roy Fieldings e-mail: > http://s.apache.org/royCommitterVeto > > I still think like Joe and feel that consensus should not apply in the > IPMC. We are way to different to normal PMCs. As IPMC members we have > no code which we can veto. Its all about accepting podlings, > discussing rules and mentoring. > > We also have 172 IPMC members to date (according committer index). > Most of the people are not seen often; we have many awol mentors. > Currently becoming an IPMC member is necessary to become a Mentor. It > always felt wrong to me. I think one should be able to become a Mentor > and finally be able to join the IPMC and discuss rules, when he has > shown merit. > > With an IPMC of that size it becomes more and more easy to get a -1. > > Personally I would like to see the IPMC separating IPMC-ship and > Mentor-ship. I have proposed this already, but it seems nobody else > except me wants that. So I am proposing now to reconsider Joes > original proposal and change our community voting to a majority voting > unless we restructure the IPMC. > > I am sorry to bring this lengthy discussion up again, but from the > original thread I have learned a couple of other IPMC members are > thinking similar on majority / consensus. > > I would also like to suggest that this time we finish the discussion > with a vote. > > Cheers > Christian > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
