Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

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


Copy link to this message
-
[DISCUSS]  Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
Let's move the discussion to general@first.
Tsz-Wo

----- Forwarded Message 1/2 -----
From: Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 3:15 PM

Eli,

If you are going to start a public vote on this, please
propose 'lazy majority', plus add a clause for STV or some such
mechanism for multiple nominations.

thanks,
Arun

On Nov 12, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Eli Collins wrote:

> I'll restart the vote on general.
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You are right we should move this to general@
>>
>> On 11/12/12 4:47 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> The bylaws are a public document for Hadoop, no? Why is this VOTE
>>> happeningon private@ then?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Robert Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/12 4:11 PM, "Eli Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here are the current bylaws for voting on the PMC chair:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated
>>>>> or when the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to
>>>>> recommend a new chair using lazy consensus, but the decision must be
>>>>> ratified by the Apache board."
>>>>>
>>>>> Per the thread on nominating a chair, let's clarify that this means we
>>>>> propose the candidate with the most binding +1s and no -1s. Ie the
>>>>> following change:
>>>>>
>>>>> site $ svn diff
>>>>> Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml
>>>>> ==================================================================>>>>> --- main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml  (revision
>>>>> 1408466)
>>>>> +++ main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml  (working
>>>>> copy)
>>>>> @@ -132,8 +132,10 @@
>>>>>
>>>>>    <p>The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is
>>>>>    rotated or when the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC
>>>>> -   votes to recommend a new chair using lazy consensus, but the
>>>>> -   decision must be ratified by the Apache board.</p></li>
>>>>> +   votes to recommend a new chair using lazy consensus. If there
>>>>> +   are multiple candidates, the candidate with the most binding
>>>>> +   +1 votes and no binding vetoes is selected. The decision must
>>>>> +   be ratified by the Apache board.</p></li>
>>>>>  </ul>
>>>>> </section>
----- Forwarded Message 2/2 -----
From: Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:56 AM

I don't think a veto makes sense...

On Nov 12, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Eli Collins wrote:

> That's my understanding, and is how Ian ran the vote last year.
>
> On Monday, November 12, 2012, Robert Evans wrote:
>
>> Under the section for the Project Management Committee the last sentence
>> states that "When the chair is rotated or when the current chair of the
>> PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a new chair using lazy consensus,
>> but the decision must be ratified by the Apache board."  I am not really
>> sure how to apply lazy consensus to votes between multiple choices, but
>> Aaron's suggestion sounds as good to me as any.  In my opinion a -1 would
>> mean I really don't want this person to be the chair, and just like in any
>> other veto it would require a valid explanation as to why.  This feels to
>> be consistent with lazy consensus.  However, I don't think a -1 will be an
>> issue in practice.  If others think this is a problem we can update the
>> bylaws to make it more explicit how nominations for, voting on, and
>> rotation of the PMC chair happens.  It will just take a week for the
>> bylaws vote and then we can start the vote for the PMC chair afterwards.
>>
>> --Bobby Evans
>>
>> On 11/12/12 12:57 PM, "Arun C Murthy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think the concept of '-1' makes sense... it should just be a
>>> straight vote?
>>>
>>> If we have more than two, we need to go STV?

Arun C. Murthy
Hortonworks Inc.
http://hortonworks.com/
+
Owen OMalley 2012-11-12, 23:53
+
Robert Evans 2012-11-13, 15:25
+
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-11-13, 18:47
+
Robert Evans 2012-11-13, 20:10
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-11-15, 21:12
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-11-16, 02:44
+
Robert Evans 2012-11-16, 15:59
+
Eli Collins 2012-11-15, 21:38
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB