Consensus Approval works great until you have someone who others rightly
or wrongly perceive as an obstructionist. Then it just makes the whole
project the loser.
At least one project uses majority approval for new members, but a serious
attempt is made to make sure that the vote is unanimous any
On 3/20/15 9:04 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I understand the various documents/pages available regarding voting
> correctly, voting a new member in can't be vetoed. Likewise is it with
> respect to voting for board members. If I have missed a page somewhere,
> please point me to it an
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Wouldn't a simple majority (more +1 than -1 votes) yield the same result?
Majority rule votes degrade community. Whenever you have a contended vote,
you produce losers who feel alienated[1]. In contrast, consensus decision
making forces th
Hi all,
If I understand the various documents/pages available regarding voting
correctly, voting a new member in can't be vetoed. Likewise is it with
respect to voting for board members. If I have missed a page somewhere,
please point me to it and I stand corrected.
The following document https:/
On 19/03/2015 Rich Bowen wrote:
http://templates.openoffice.org/en/search?search_api_views_fulltext=apachecon&sort_by=created&sort_order=ASC
and also
http://people.apache.org/~nick/NickTemplateACEU14.odp
Also, see
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/community-dev/201411.mbox/browser
for disc
+1
On 03/19/2015 01:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
+1 to lazy consensus - this is a reversible step
-Original Message-
From: Ulrich Stärk [mailto:u...@spielviel.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:08 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: commit rights to ComDev non-c
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> ...I assume lazy consensus and will go ahead and modify the permissions if
> nobody objects within
> the next 72 hours
Sure, thanks for doing that!
-Bertrand
