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 Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [DISCUSS]  Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
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?
Tsz-Wo
________________________________
 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
 
Vinod,

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.

--Bobby

On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
>+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.
>
>Thanks,
>+Vinod
>
>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
>>
>
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