The committer/PMC privileges is derived from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote is against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect those who differ with the vote to take that as feedback, if there are corrections to be made in the understanding, they respectfully clarify that misunderstanding. I agree with Chris, we have seen in the past where discussions have gone on and on for a long time when there were disagreements until people gave up, This leads to frustration and less participation by members - this is also an ultimate productivity killer. You can see why some of the discuss threads go quiet and die. I am all for discussion and reaching consensus but at some point one must realize its just kicking a dead horse and turns into an endurance contest rather than a discussion. We should be careful on the expectations we set in regard to how we reach consensus. On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:18 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to keep > discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by > someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to push, > right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss > this any further”, which is fair in that situation, then they’re the “bad > guy”? While it sounds like a noble persuit, I just feel like this could be > abused. > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:53 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Chris, > > > > Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can > > have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit > > on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the > > discussion was wrapped up. > > > > - Carin > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that > > after > > > a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject > trying > > to > > > just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen > this > > > before, actually. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > -1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is > the > > > > natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we > > > should > > > > start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all > try > > > to > > > > agree to start a nuclear war. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Carin: > > > >> Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write > down > > > the > > > >> PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line: > > > >> > > > >> - "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach > consensus > > > >> with > > > >> discussion when possible." > > > >> > > > >> Since I don't really want us to give an impression of abusing > veto > > > >> rights. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks! > > > >> Tianqi > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > This vote is to adopt the document > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal > > > >> > to replace the current document > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer > > > >> > > > > >> > The dev discussion thread is here > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e61ffa26af374de7a99c475d406e462a00b26cfc1155e232198dd53e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E > > > >> > > > > >> > The vote will be a procedural issue vote as defined > > > >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > >> > > > > >> > 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 > > > >> > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> > for a > > > >> > modifying factor.) > > > >> > > > > >> > The vote will run until Friday Nov 2nd at 6:00 am EST > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > Carin > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
