Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)." My point was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
Ralph On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Ralph, > > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible > voters. Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used. > > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git). > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters. > > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member > votes. > > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem. > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to > make faster progress. Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was > premature, it would have been much better. To wait until after the vote > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance. > > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE]. > > See > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > This is the point that Phil first commented. > > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE] > subject a number of times: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3ca9d202a4-6e76-42d8-9606-1e40d6916...@gmail.com%3E > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c08688247-b00e-44c7-8b21-f107921b4...@gmail.com%3E > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c5256ff12.3070...@gmail.com%3E > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c110b24a9-dd67-436d-9e2d-e29521693...@gmail.com%3E > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3c110b24a9-dd67-436d-9e2d-e29521693...@gmail.com%3E > > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote: > >> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General >> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity. See >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom >> which I quote below: >> >> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common >> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution). >> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things >> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively >> agree). >> >> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP >> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some >> other set of bylaws." >> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there >> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted. Unanimity means everyone >> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be >> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s. >> >> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says >> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 >> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.", However, I don't see any guidance on the >> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a >> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git >> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to >> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote. >> >> Ralph >> >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote: >> >>> Phil, >>> >>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote: >>> >>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule >>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes >>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- >>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of >>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus, >>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of >>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)" >>> >>> I got this information from: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>> >>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus >>> (consensus != unanimous). >>> >>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have >>> any luck with our test component (different thread). If we see the >>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or >>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on. Hopefully that addresses >>> your concerns. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote: >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes. As I see it >>>>> (counting votes on both lists): >>>>> >>>>> +1s >>>>> James Carman >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>> Matt Benson >>>>> Benedikt Ritter >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita >>>>> Gary Gregory >>>>> Luc Maisonobe >>>>> Oliver Heger >>>>> Christian Grobmeier >>>>> Torsten Curdt >>>>> >>>>> -1s >>>>> Mark Thomas >>>>> Thomas Vandahl >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic >>>>> Gilles Sadowski >>>>> Jorg Schaible >>>>> >>>>> +0.5 >>>>> Olivier Lamy >>>>> >>>>> +0 >>>>> Ralph Goers >>>>> >>>>> -0 >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg >>>>> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM. We >>>>> should begin working on a plan. I propose we set up a wiki page for >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> I protest. It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is >>>> clearly not the case here. I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE >>>> as premature. We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote. Having two vote >>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got >>>>> everyone's vote. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv >>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp >>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all >>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the >> too >>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try >> releasing a >>>>>>>>> component!! >>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big >>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active >>>>>>> committers. Once we actually have something ready to release, we >> have >>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process. The >> problem is >>>>>>> getting there. >>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things >> ready >>>>>>> for release. I will help on pool, DBCP, math. I won't rob Mark of >> the >>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun >>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2. >>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things to release? >>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while >> back. >>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU. >>>>>> >>>>>> Benedikt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Oliver >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman < >> ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git. I >>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote. So, here we go: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git >>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours. Go! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy >>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ >>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ >>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter >>>>>> http://github.com/britter >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
