incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:57:49 GMT

On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> 
>> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>> 
>> On 1/30/2012 7:51 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> 
>>>> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: 
>>>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:47 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/30/2012 7:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." 
>>>> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>>>   It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people
>>>>>>>   lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having 
>> veto
>>>>>>>   authority over personnel matters makes little sense on 
>> this
>>>>>>>   PMC.  Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that 
>> personnel
>>>>>>>   votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes 
>> allowed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   -1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   The argument is very simple, you don't allow a simple 
>> majority to
>>>>>>   tyrannize the minority.  So the ASF has long held a simple 
>> standard
>>>>>>   of consensus on all committee additions and subtractions.  
>> Some
>>>>>>   majority might be irked at [insert name here]'s 
>> [actions|inaction|
>>>>>>   comments|silence] but that was never grounds to remove a 
>> committee
>>>>>>   member.  If you want to propose some supermajority metric 
>> other than
>>>>>>   "unanimous", that could work (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4 in 
>> agreement
>>>>> 
>>>>>   In your plan then a -1 is really a -2 or -3?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Sounds like a filibuster...
>>>> 
>>>> No, I'm -1 to this proposal.  I'd support his proposal if it 
>> were
>>>> modified to provide for a measurable super-majority consensus.
>>> 
>>> Define supermajority in a way that isn't patently absurd and perhaps
>>> I'll consider amending it.
>> 
>> 2/3.  3/4.  Take your pick.  I'd argue on the high end.  Consider that
>> to defeat a 3/4 supermajority consisting of 9 votes requires more than
>> 2 people against.  This committee has an order of magnitude more voters.
>> Simple obstructionism is easy to deal with.
> 
> Oh, so you want a supermajority in terms of those who have voted, not in
> terms of the membership of the IPMC?  Not unreasonable.  Let's see what
> others think.

Seems reasonable to me as well.


Regards,
Alan
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message