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