Feel free to change to "rights" if that is more welcoming and suits better.
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:24 PM, Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > > Also from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html there is no > mention of the word "privileges", maybe "right" is a better term. > > I feel there is some wisdom in choose not to emphasize the entitlements > being given in the role. After all, the PMC/committership is given by the > community, and the main job of PMC/committer is to use the power serve the > community well. And we should choose wisely as our actions have > consequences, and the community is watching > > Tianqi > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> As far as I recall from what Jim said >> >> "The ASF strives for consensus, and votes and voting are used, primarily, >> to gauge that. It's not used to divide a community; it's used to UNITE it. >> Voting is used when collaboration and consensus building *FAILS*. It should >> be rare." >> >> In this context, we all agree that when a veto vote occurs everyone should >> respect it and not kick a dead horse. On the other hand, the >> PMC/committers should be cautious when using this power, as the community >> should always encourage reach consensus via reasonable technical discussion >> first. >> >> As with all the ML models, every guideline can be interpreted in an >> adversarial fashion but I hope we can have a goodwill to build toward a >> positive sum collaboration. >> >> Tianqi >> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:01 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>
