> On May 5, 2021, at 11:13 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le mer. 5 mai 2021 à 17:44, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a écrit : >> >> >> >>> On May 5, 2021, at 6:38 AM, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Le mar. 4 mai 2021 à 02:49, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a >>> écrit : >>>> >>>> I apologize. I started another thread regarding the vote before seeing >>>> this. >>> >>> No problem. >>> >>>> Maybe that will get more attention? >>> >>> It doesn't seem so. :-} >>> >>> IMHO, valid answers have been given to the statements/questions >>> from people who didn't vote +1. >>> The very low turnout makes the arithmetics of the result fairly >>> subjective... >>> >>> The optimistic view is that >>> 1. most people don't care (that the repository is created), >>> 2. there is no reason to doubt the infos provided by actual users of >>> those codes, >>> 3. there is an embryo of a community (perhaps not viable, but only >>> the future can tell...),[1] >>> 4. the same kind of welcoming gestures should apply for the proposed >>> contributions, as for the attempt to resuscitate "Commons Graph"[2], >>> even if some of the PMC might arguably prefer another option. >> >> Regardless, following https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> indicates that this vote is >> not going to pass. > > How so? > [It's not about a code change; and no "technical argument" can be invoked.]
It looks like you didn’t read the page. For clarity I am copying it here "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 <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> for a modifying factor.)" So a procedural vote requires a majority. But note that it also calls out that if the number of voters seems too small then the issue is usually not pursued. Both of these describe this situation perfectly. The vote did not get a majority of binding votes (it was a tie) and the number of votes was very small. > >> You can’t assert lazy consensus on an explicit vote. If you had started >> this as a lazy consensus vote it >> is likely it would have still gotten a -1 vote since both Sebb and Emmanuel >> have voice opposition. > > A "veto" does not apply here. > Hence my remark on the "arithmetics" since the total tally is slightly > "pro" although the PMC tally is slightly "con”. Where did I use the word “veto”? I never used the word “veto”. There are essentially 3 ways to vote, Yes, No, and Abstain. In a procedural vote + or -1 represent an abstention. Anything less than 0 is a No and anything greater is a Yes. So saying there were -1 votes implies there are “No” votes and therefore there is no consensus. Ralph
