Apache Subversion uses discussion/consensus for all of those. We throw out +1 and similar as shorthand for our preference, but we never tally, as it isn't a formal vote.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > In all of the projects I have been PMC or PPMC on, we vote on releases, new > committers, and elevating committers to PMC. > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > > > > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal > > > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, > > > then the decision is reviewed as a whole. But this is not how things > > would > > > work in a pTLP, right? Individuals there would effectively cast votes > +1 > > > (binding), or -1 (binding), +1 (non-binding), or -1 (non-binding), > etc., > > > depending if they are a Member or not. Maybe in practice the pTLP PMC > > > wouldn't write down their votes like that, but somehow the distinction > > must > > > be presented in the tallies to be meaningful. > > > > > > > Nah. First: votes should be rare in the first place. Go for consensus > > instead. Apache Subversion has had maybe 3 votes in its 15 year history. > > > > And if you *do* end up voting? People already know who is binding or not. > > This isn't some star chamber PMC. Everybody knows each other already. If > > the PMC is voting differently from the others, then you have a problem, > > regardless of not/binding. > > > > Anyways... we'll run the experiment, and see how it works. We may have a > > candidate already. > > > > Cheers, > > -g > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
