Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 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