Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [DISCUSS]  Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair.
Or left for the board to choose.

Thanks,
--Konst

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Owen's proposal sounds good in general.  There are slight variances of STV.  I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting (http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting).  We should add a link to their wiki in our bylaws.
>
>
> How about tiebreaker?  What if there are only two candidates and they get exactly the same number of votes?
>
>
> Tsz-Wo
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
>
> Vinod,
>
> I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them.
> Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue.  That is why I said "However,
> I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or
> not."  I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote
> thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>+1 to Owen's suggestion.
>>
>>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates
>>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See
>>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are
>>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that,  one should not expect vetoes
>>at all in this vote.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>+Vinod
>>
>>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote:
>>
>>> The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache
>>> board should be based off of lazy consensus.  That means that any PMC
>>> member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with
>>> the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be
>>> confirmed by another PMC member.  I am fine with the proposal to use
>>>STV.
>>> However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for
>>> vetoes or not.  If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a
>>> candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known
>>> during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is
>>>valid
>>> enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid
>>> enough to influence any voting process we set up.  I don't care what
>>> voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick
>>> one that can handle one or more candidates.
>>>
>>> -- Bobby
>>>
>>> On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicholas.
>>>>
>>>> I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with
>>>>STV
>>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>>voting
>>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>>than
>>>> it solves.
>>>>
>>>> -- Owen
>>>
>>