Le ven. 12 mai 2023 à 12:02, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a écrit :
> Howdy, > > Lazy consensus? > 3 days until someone objects ;), should also generally be announced upfront if done thanks a VOTE thread like this one if it is what you had in mind otherwise people expect the standard rules to apply and get surprised the vote passed without sufficient bindings. On a more personal note, I don't think lazy consensus is ok to change the voting rules (legally it is but community wide I'm on the other camp but that's a detail). So to summarize my view: don't try to abuse our rules to get a quick and dirty fakish solution but either we try to solve it altogether if we agree there is an issue or we just keep what we have with its pros and cons. I'd just like to highlight you also launched "[DISCUSS] Speed up release process?" thread which was at the opposite of this one and the discussion led to "3 days is good" so I'm a bit lost with your attempts too and think you maybe run after a horse I don't understand but which is not the vote duration. > > Again, my main goal is to stir voters up. > And if unclear, of course I expect negative votes, but I DO EXPECT votes :D > > T > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:58 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > from mobile (sorry for typos ;) > > > > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023, 16:53 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > > > > > Howdy Romain, > > > > > > So here is a catch: this is a completely valid vote started by a member > > of > > > PMC. > > > The reason for it is exactly to shake up things a bit. > > > Otherwise, if nobody votes, this vote according to ASF voting > guidelines > > > will pass. > > > > > > > To pass the VOTE needs at least 3 +1 > > And more positive votes than negative > > > > How vote can pass if nobody votes? > > > > > > > Thanks > > > T > > > > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:43 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tamas, I don't share the analyzis (and if I would have to vote it > > > would > > > > be rather negative). > > > > Concretely I don't think "This makes it clear that ONLY 72h is > totally > > > > anti-community and disrespectful." is accurate, less than an off day > > > > (sunday) can be but 3 days is generally okish. > > > > > > > > That said, nobody prevents you to keep a vote running for 1 month, > will > > > > likely makes it even less interesting, more blocking between projects > > and > > > > ultimately harder to follow for voters from my experience so I tend > to > > > > think that even if I strongly share the intent, the solution is not > > that > > > > great and does not address the actual issue...in particular cause it > > > always > > > > had been allowed by asf to do so, 3 days is a min. > > > > > > > > Keep in mind maven is a very split ecosystem and you can rarely vote > on > > > > everything either by knowledge or by time. Ultimately it could makes > > > sense > > > > to think to split the community/decrease the number of repos/... > > > (thinking > > > > out loud trying to find solution to the issue you describe). > > > > > > > > So maybe start by a check of the last votes you consider being bad, > and > > > ask > > > > why people didnt vote and if there is a way to make them more > included > > or > > > > if the issue is something else (on a personal side I know I tend to > > > ignore > > > > the votes on projects I never use/contribute to for ex). > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le ven. 12 mai 2023 à 11:32, Tamás Cservenák <csta...@apache.org> a > > > écrit > > > > : > > > > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a change to the ASF Maven voting process (in > line > > > > with > > > > > ASF guidelines): > > > > > CHANGE the current "vote open for at least 72h" window to "vote > open > > > for > > > > at > > > > > least 30 days, or more". > > > > > > > > > > Reasoning: > > > > > According to paperwork (ASF stats) we have more than 90 voters > > > available > > > > > (PMCs + committers). > > > > > Still, multiple release votes recently were able to pass the > > "doorstep" > > > > > only by "hunting down" voters and pulling their sleeves (apologies > > and > > > > > thanks to them). This makes it clear that ONLY 72h is totally > > > > > anti-community and disrespectful. Nobody's sleeve should be pulled. > > > > That's > > > > > disrespectful for sleeves as well (except if you wear a T-shirt). > We > > > must > > > > > serve our project community in the best manner, and let our voters > be > > > > able > > > > > to cast well thought votes in a timely manner, hence increasing the > > > > > irrationally short window of opportunity for casting votes IS A > MUST. > > > And > > > > > leave the sleeves alone. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but the vote is open for at least 72 hours ONLY. > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 > > > > > [ ] +0 > > > > > [ ] -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
