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
+
Tsz Wo Sze 2012-11-15, 21:12
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2012-11-16, 02:44
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting
That sounds good to me.

On 11/15/12 8:44 PM, "Konstantin Shvachko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The tiebreaker can be resolved by the current PMC chair.
>Or left for the board to choose.
>
>Thanks,
>--Konst
>
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
+
Eli Collins 2012-11-15, 21:38