No. Votes to admit (or expunge) the roster should never be by lazy consensus. I think the IPMC (or Board, in the post-incubation TLP world) would express serious reservations. Please vote, folks, we need 3 +1's on such issues, but it should reflect a clear plurality.
In typical (private@) discussion if a candidate gets support of 5 out of 100 PMC members, the nomination is typically withdrawn, and re-proposed after more substantial contributions are made. When the committee supports a candidate, it's obvious :) Roman, please address my concern for putting forward the vote for all 6(?) for both commit + PPMC. It doesn't matter that we made this policy, we must be explicit in nominations/votes, for when or if the two become distinct. Technical choices are usually appropriate for lazy consensus - in the absence of objection, we assume the group accepts the change. The social dynamics of objecting to an individual, especially a coworker make this an impossible tool for people-issue questions. Even on a private list On Jun 10, 2015 1:45 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to everybody who chimed in on the thread. > > Very to happy to see the level of support here! > I'm going to restart the VOTE with Michael Stolz's > name on the list. All of you who voted: you don't > have to recast your votes. The new thread (just > like this one) is going to be 72 hours lazy consensus. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Michael Stolz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, I'd like to be part of this group as well. Seeing as how I was > > the very first customer to deploy Gemfire in production. > > > > -- > > Mike Stolz > > Principal Technical Account Manager > > Mobile: 631-835-4771 > > On Jun 9, 2015 8:18 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> for various reasons we missed a few Pivotal folks > >> when submitting a Geode proposal. There's nothing > >> controversial about them -- just an honest mistake. > >> They are all currently working on the project and > >> contributed quite a bit in the past. In short, they have > >> as much a claim in being a project committer as > >> all the other folks who were on the proposal. > >> > >> I propose that we add them to the project as committers > >> since they should've been on the proposal to begin with: > >> * Chloe Jackson > >> * Manuel David > >> * Rajesh Kumar > >> * Rishitesh Mishra > >> * Shankar Hundekar > >> > >> This majority vote is open for at least 72 hours and lazy consensus > >> applies. > >> > >> Here's my +1. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Roman. > >> >
