Tsz Wo Sze 2012-11-12, 23:23
Owen OMalley 2012-11-12, 23:53
Robert Evans 2012-11-13, 15:25
+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 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
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