Thanks for the great question and the detailed answer about the code mods vote! The issue we have here is kinda on the fence: the issue is in the code, but the vote is on the release. If you look at the same page but under "Votes on Package Releases" you'll see that "...the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is universal." So, two +1 aren't enough, as for release to be blessed by the PMC at least three votes are required.
And no: binding votes aren't as twice as powerful ;) But only binding votes are material when it gets to a release, because a project's PMC is legally bound by the release decision. Hence, my -1 indicates that we have a serious issue with inability to validate that all bits are license clean. Which kills the release candidate. That's how I see it. -- With regards, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Kevin Monroe <kevin.mon...@canonical.com> wrote: > Hey Arnaud, > > I was looking into the ASF voting mechanism recently and came across this: > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > In this case, I think the relevant portion for a single -1 derailing the > vote is here: > > --- > Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In this scenario, a > negative vote constitutes a veto , which cannot be overridden. Again, this > model may be modified by a lazy consensus declaration when the request for > a vote is raised, but the full-stop nature of a negative vote is unchanged. > Under normal (non-lazy consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three > positive votes and no negative ones in order to pass; if it fails to garner > the requisite amount of support, it doesn't -- and typically is either > withdrawn, modified, or simply allowed to languish as an open issue until > someone gets around to removing it. > --- > > As @cos mentioned earlier in the thread, the vote is on the bigtop code > base and (to me) falls under the above code modification guidelines. He > found a blocking RAT issue with the bigtop source and voted -1. There is > no math that can dilute his veto. > > I'm far from an expert on ASF voting, but that's my read on why a binding > -1 could block the release. > > -Kevin > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Arnaud Launay <a...@launay.org> wrote: > >> Le Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 01:20:18AM +0800, Evans Ye a écrit: >> > To summarize the vote result: >> > The vote is REJECTED with 3 binding +1s, 1 binding -1 and 1 non-binding >> -1. >> >> Just out of curiosity: 1 binding -1 is sufficient to derail the >> vote ? >> >> Because to me, if you say something like "binding counts twice", >> it goes : >> >> 3*(1*2)+1*(-1*2)+1*(1*-1) >> 3 >> >> Even with basic voting: >> 3-1-1 >> 1 >> >> Still positive ? :) >> >> >> Arnaud. >>
