On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Tom White wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I suggest we make this stronger. >>> By way of comparison, the recently enacted bylaws for Pig >>> (http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html) have consensus, for example. >> >> Consensus is equivalent to making the PMC a permanent appointment. >> Discussions would be more civil and more likely to offer compromise- >> we would actually work toward consensus- if intransigence and >> hostility had consequences. Removing people is a last resort. Moving >> the barrier closer doesn't make it more likely, but it aligns >> incentives so rational people will reign in their more intemperate >> comments and, instead, find ways to make progress. >> >> Many projects require supermajorities or even 3/4 majorities. It's >> sufficiently damning if more than half the PMC thinks an individual is >> so destructive that less damage would be done by ejecting them, in my >> opinion, but again: this is not a facility we should use, or have to >> use. Throwing someone out is an expensive failure for the project, and >> an conspicuous failure of its governance and community. Personally, I >> don't care if it's a majority or a supermajority, but consensus is a >> fig leaf. > > Fair point. For a large PMC, that's probably true. This matter was > discussed on the Pig list, and there was a range of opinion there: > http://search-hadoop.com/m/jk35b2tZCuy&subj=RE+DISCUSS+Apache+Pig+bylaws. > Personally, I think a supermajority strikes the right balance. > > Tom Yup, all good points Chris. I, too, agree that supermajority strikes a good balance. Nige
