commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2013 01:20:45 GMT
Ralph,

I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.

But where you say

As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.


I disagree.  The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.




On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:

> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)."  My point
> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is
used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@gmail.com%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> >> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich
I quote below:
> >>
> >> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> >> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> >> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> >> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> >> agree).
> >>
> >> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> >> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> >> other set of bylaws."
> >> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> >> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means
> everyone
> >> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> >> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >>
> >> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> >> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> >> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> >> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or a
> >> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> >> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> >> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Phil,
> >>>
> >>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >>>
> >>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> >>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> >>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> >>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> >>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> >>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> >>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> >>>
> >>> I got this information from:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >>>
> >>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> >>> (consensus != unanimous).
> >>>
> >>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> >>> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> >>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> >>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> >>> your concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see
it
> >>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1s
> >>>>> James Carman
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Matt Benson
> >>>>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>>>> Oliver Heger
> >>>>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1s
> >>>>> Mark Thomas
> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>>>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>>>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0.5
> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0
> >>>>> Ralph Goers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -0
> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.
 We
> >>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page
for
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
> >>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>>>> everyone's vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> James
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own
commons-csv
> >>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external
on dbcp
> >>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need
to repackage
> all
> >>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems
about the
> >> too
> >>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here
to try
> >> releasing a
> >>>>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem;
but the
> big
> >>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really
active
> >>>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release,
we
> >> have
> >>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.
 The
> >> problem is
> >>>>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting
some things
> >> ready
> >>>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't
rob Mark of
> >> the
> >>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to
join the
> fun
> >>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then
dbcp2.
> >>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to
release?
> >>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification
a while
> >> back.
> >>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk
about
> BU.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Benedikt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> >> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving
our SCM to Git.
>  I
> >>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here
we go:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message