The by-laws already stipulate lazy 2/3 majority for the Chair. Chip is proposing that the same applies to committers and PMC members.
I see no reason to make it any more complex than that. On 24 July 2013 18:33, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- NS
