On 1/31/12 3:06 AM, 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 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.
I would easily +1 a proposal with a 3/4 majority of the *voters*.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
