----- Original Message ----- > From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes > > On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >>> To: general@incubator.apache.org >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes >>> >>> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." >>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>>>>> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people >>>>>> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having > veto >>>>>> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on > this >>>>>> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that > personnel >>>>>> votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes > allowed. >>>>> >>>>> -1 >>>>> >>>>> The argument is very simple, you don't allow a simple > majority to >>>>> tyrannize the minority. So the ASF has long held a simple > standard >>>>> of consensus on all committee additions and subtractions. > Some >>>>> majority might be irked at [insert name here]'s > [actions|inaction| >>>>> comments|silence] but that was never grounds to remove a > committee >>>>> member. If you want to propose some supermajority metric > other than >>>>> "unanimous", that could work (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4 in > agreement >>>> >>>> In your plan then a -1 is really a -2 or -3? >>>> >>>> Sounds like a filibuster... >>> >>> No, I'm -1 to this proposal. I'd support his proposal if it > were >>> modified to provide for a measurable super-majority consensus. >> >> Define supermajority in a way that isn't patently absurd and perhaps >> I'll consider amending it. > > 2/3. 3/4. Take your pick. I'd argue on the high end. Consider that > to defeat a 3/4 supermajority consisting of 9 votes requires more than > 2 people against. This committee has an order of magnitude more voters. > Simple obstructionism is easy to deal with.
Oh, so you want a supermajority in terms of those who have voted, not in terms of the membership of the IPMC? Not unreasonable. Let's see what others think. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
