On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, "Doug Cutting" <cutt...@apache.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> To me, agreeing on "the norm" is not the same as policy, especially >>policy >> that does not allow for exceptions. > >I agree. Establishing whether there is a norm is a useful first step. > That's what I'm trying to take. Thus far I've seen noone disagree >that consensus is most common for committer additions at Apache. I've >also seen folks suggest that they prefer having norms than having >explicit bylaws for their projects. I don't anticipate any policy >being established as a result of this discussion, except perhaps >better documenting what the assumed default is for projects that don't >choose to have explicit bylaws. > >> And again, to me, "consensus != unanimity". > >This might be another case where better documentation would help. In >my experience at Apache, consensus is equated with unanimity. In my tour of the internet since my last post and your reply, it does appear that most Apache-related information indicates that committer voting uses consensus and thus the Voting document [1] is out of date. I found this link as well [2]. I'd be tempted to replace the Voting document [1] with this [2], although I'm not sure I understand the difference between "consensus" and "unanimous consensus". Your thoughts? [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html [2] http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticGovernanceVoting -Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
