On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > Sigh. > > On 10/18/2011 7:45 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier >> <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v<floris...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef: >>>>> >>>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about >>>>> getting >>>>> stiff done. >>>> >>>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how >>>> many >>>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you >>>> get >>>> the point) the project to vote. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we >>> really discussing to leave out the vote? >>> >>> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is >>> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC >>> with this vote too! >>> >> >> Think of it this way: With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can >> veto a proposal. With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of >> voters approve. So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach. It is the >> stricter requirement. >> >> So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a >> redundant vote? > > There's another side to this: if sufficient people want to have a vote - for > whatever reasons, be it clearing their conscience or whatever - then I > recommend that they JFDI. > > A key issue for communities is to let the whole community work together. > When part of the community wants to do something new, even if someone > thinks it's a dumb idea, as long as the idea isn't harmful, then why are you > standing in the way? > > With code, it's fairly simple; we can measure conformance tests or > performance numbers. With social issues it is indeed harder to judge. But > if that many other people want to hold a vote, then I say let them. > >> I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds. What precedent does >> this set? For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal >> to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that >> it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus >> (lack of veto)? Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer >> to veto a proposal? > > I think you are approaching this whole project from a perspective faaaaaar > too rooted in detail oriented, formal policy, standards setting background. > Just because the PPMC holds a vote on this issue does not set a policy in > stone that votes must always be held on every issue (or on any kind of > issue). It just > > The Apache Way is like Zen. There are some rules and plenty of guidelines, > but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each other > and works towards consensus. >
Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it. Your uncalled for personal attacks denigrating my standards experience does not change this. Remember, Dennis also has a background in standards (he's on a committee that I chair) and he, not I, is the one pushing for unnecessary greater process around this. Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus received. Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of procedural wrangling. And for what purpose?. Personally I'd recommend that they JFDI. -Rob > Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the PPMC > has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you > seem to see policies everywhere. Given that the podling is only a few > months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any > "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation. > >> >> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations: >> >> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers, >> etc. > > And please note Christian's comment: >>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC >>> with this vote too! > > Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone on > this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal does? > > PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote, and > that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote for each > individual being added. > > - Shane > >> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to >> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from >> alternatives >> >> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision >> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If >> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote? >> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51% >> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus? >> >> -Rob >
