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


+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-11-12, 23:23
+
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
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
>>
>
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-11-16, 02:44
+
Robert Evans 2012-11-16, 15:59
+
Eli Collins 2012-11-15, 21:38