Writing as an ASF member and at least emeritus or perhaps active (I can't recall) member of this PMC, I would be very concerned if we felt the need to move to some sort of majority voting scheme.
A healthy community does not suffer from such a volume of disagreement about technical direction that it needs to be voting on very many changes, let alone needing a majority voting scheme to resolve irreconcilable differences. Vetos, in the usual Apache scheme of things, should be _rare_ events. In RTC communities, sometimes changes take a long time to get to C if they are controversial. A procedural short-cut to a majority isn't fixing the problem, which is lack of consensus over direction, it's hiding it. I confess that I was not tuned into the start of all this; I strongly recommend a rewind to the question of why there are enough disagrements to motivate this proposal. On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: > Accoding to ASF bylaws a valid veto from a PMC member is binding. > Also, there is no procedure for throwing someone off the PMC. > So such a veto is binding for as long as the PMC member maintains their > status. > > Most companies appoint 3,5,7 person majority rule boards that are not involved > with day-to-day to allow consensus for day-to-day operations, but > provide a relief valve when consensus cannot be achieved over important > decisions. The existence of a board induces compromise since an individual > veto is unlikely to hold up when brought to the board. > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:45:48PM -0500, Corey Nolet wrote: >> Jeremy, >> >> The PMC boards in ASF are required to look out for the long term health of >> the entire project. This is why the conversation of consensus can be a >> touchy one and a hard one to agree on. If a single PMC member vetos a code >> change, can that single member stop the code from being changed or could >> majority overrule the veto. It's going to be a complicated discussion. >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Jeremy, >> > >> > The PMC boards in ASF are re >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> To be effective, most boards need to be small (~5 people) and not >> >> involved with day-to-day. >> >> Ideally, if someone says "let's bring this to the board for a decision" >> >> the >> >> collective response should be "no, let's figure out a compromise". >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:26:09PM -0600, Mike Drob wrote: >> >> > Jeremey, FWIW I believe that the PMC is supposed to be that board. In >> >> our >> >> > case, it happens to also be the same population as the committers, >> >> because >> >> > it was suggested that the overlap leads to a healthier community >> >> overall. >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > -1 (I vote to keep current consensus approach) >> >> > > >> >> > > An alternative method for resolution would be to setup an >> >> > > elected (or appointed) advisory board of a small number of folks whose >> >> > > job it is to look out for the long-term health and strategy of >> >> Accumulo. >> >> > > This board could then >> >> > > be appealed to on the rare occassions when consensus over important >> >> > > long-term issues >> >> > > cannot be achieved. Just the presence of such a board often has the >> >> effect >> >> > > encouraging productive compromise amongst participants. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:33:40PM +0000, dlmar...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > It was suggested in the ACCUMULO-3176 thread that code changes >> >> should be >> >> > > majority approval instead of consensus approval. I'd like to explore >> >> this >> >> > > idea as it might keep the voting email threads less verbose and leave >> >> the >> >> > > discussion and consensus building to the comments in JIRA. Thoughts? >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >
