So I'm not even a committer yet, but this is an idea on how I think I would want to be voted in.
For Committer - 2/3 Lazy This makes sure that at least 2 people basically nominated, and seconded and the votes were 2:1 in favor of the person coming in. For PMC - 3/4 Lazy This is the leadership of the project and there needs to be a true consensus and not just a majority to bring someone in. This allows for a higher consensus to be reached. For Chairman (I think you guys missed this one, maybe it was applied) - 3/4 Lazy with no -1 Binding Veto The PMC has to be in Consensus and there can't really be a major dissent in my thought process. Veto also requires a through explanation why. 2 cents, Matt On 7/19/13 1:27 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >Specifically, Chip is calling for us to change committer / PMC votes from >"lazy consensus" to "2/3 majority". (That is, the vote type for that >specific decision making process changes, but the vote type definitions >are >left alone.) > > >On 19 July 2013 17:32, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:07PM +0000, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >> > There's several places in the by laws that call for Lazy Consensus. >>Are >> we >> > discussing modifying all of them or just new committer votes? >> >> New committer and PMC membership. >> >> sorry, I think the email could be more clear. This is per the $subject: >> new committer / new PMC member votes only. >> >> > >> > On 7/19/13 9:02 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> > >> > >As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes >>Noah, I >> > >know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think >>that's >> > >a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as: >> > > >> > >> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no >> > >> binding -1 votes. >> > > >> > >I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule >>to >> > >use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as: >> > > >> > >> Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and >>twice as >> > >> many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes. >> > > >> > >Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change? >> > >> > >> > > > >-- >NS
