The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair.
Or left for the board to choose.
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?
> 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
> 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.
> On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>+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.
>>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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when
>>>> in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems
>>>> it solves.
>>>> -- Owen