John, On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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).
No, I actually mean the IPMC: http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc Cheers Christian > 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 >> >> -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
