commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 23:07:50 GMT
There were two threads.  As I explained, the first two DISCUSSION/VOTE
threads were getting mingled together in gmail, so I started another thread
for the VOTE hoping to avoid confusion (apparently I failed in that).



On Sunday, October 13, 2013, 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 c

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