Perhaps this discussion stems from questions about how Apache uses the term 'consensus'.
In the rest of the world, there is a formally defined 'consensus decision process'. The goal of this process is to make decisions when possible, and leave the status quo otherwise. Very roughly, discussion takes place. When the moderator perceives a possible consensus, the moderator asks, 'does anyone block consensus'? At that point, people think very carefully, balancing the value of action against the importance of an objection. If people have a too-low threshold for blocking consensus, then nothing ever happens. If people have a too-high threshold, then disagreements build and other disfunction sets in. You can model an Apache 'vote with veto' as an electronic consensus test. -1 means 'I'm not thrilled, but I'm open to persuasion.' VETO is a blocking of consensus. +0 is 'I'm not thrilled, but I'm I won't block it.' The concept of 'procedural votes' is that there are some topics that don't deserve all of this angst; that a defined quorum of people in favor is enough. Whether PMC or commit should be consensus or procedural I leave to others to debate; I just offer this to try to put the veto into context. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree: consensus reached through discussion as far better than having to > do the (majority rule) vote. As with that, you -for sure - don't always get > what you want. > > But it is - by far-the best alternative available to keep movement in a > project. And do-overs are possible. > > Pierre > > Op dinsdag 24 maart 2015 heeft Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com >> <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> > <bdelacre...@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux >> > > <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > >> Who will update the https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html >> > page?* >> > > >> > > I've done that, it now says "In general, committer elections are >> > > majority approval votes, as described on the Apache Voting Process >> > > page" with a link. >> > >> > That's not my understanding. It's not what I've heard from the Board >> > over the years, particularly from Greg. And I believe that it's for a >> > very good reason that personnel votes at Apache are not majority rule: >> > majority rule forces a result rather than creates consensus. >> > >> >> I dislike all voting, yes. Consensus through discussion is definitely a >> better approach. >> >> Concretely: I don't think there is any specific recommendation for how a >> PMC/community decides upon new committers. I've seen many mechanisms. In >> fact, within Apache Subversion, a committer can be added by any *singular* >> PMC member, no vote required (but their resulting commit rights are >> limited). >> >> For PMC Members, Roy has stated [on general@incubator, on 1/31/2012] that: >> >> "Well, it boils down to the fact that making someone a PMC member gives >> them veto power over the changes you make. The only way that works >> socially is if everyone currently on the PMC agrees that person is a peer." >> >> >... >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> > > > -- > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com
