On 21 March 2015 at 12:00, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the majority perceives that a nominee is an obstructionist then it will > be reflected in the voting result. But if the minority - or even only one > voter - perceives that and others don't, then a veto would be a show > stopper for innovation, expansion and merit recognition c.q. privilege > awarding. > > I wonder how it can be that democracy is perceived worse than any other > cracy when it comes to people in open source projects in general and ASF > projects in particular. Mature projects shouldn't need to have such a > mechanism when it comes to people. And it doesn't seem to fit in he Apache > Way. > I really hope (and partly) know that our mature project, use the time and effort on consensus (something which of course would not work in a community the size of a country), for these projects the VOTE is merely a confirmation of the consensus. Reading this thread you seem to be working your way around a specific problem/discussion. Maybe it would be easier to talk about specifics. As written earlier a PMC can make their own rules so we do not need to change the general recommendations. One of the main reasons I am with ASF, is the consensus model, in many other foundations you have either pure anarchy (the loudest win) or strong voting rules, neither is good for the community. Consensus building is not easy, being the odd voice in a PMC calls for healthy nerves and a good deal of diplomacy. But the tough work is rewarded by the fact that the community stays united. just my 2ct. jan I. > > Best regards > > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Consensus Approval works great until you have someone who others rightly > > or wrongly perceive as an obstructionist. Then it just makes the whole > > project the loser. > > > > At least one project uses majority approval for new members, but a > serious > > attempt is made to make sure that the vote is unanimous anyway. Those in > > opposition deserve to be listened to, but if there are only one or two > > against and lots more in favor, then majority approval avoids long > threads > > trying to persuade the one or two. Sure discussing more to achieve > > Consensus can be better, but you can also lose momentum of the committer > > candidate and momentum of the rest of the community. > > > > The -1 vote is an alluring drug. It can be misused by individuals who, > > consciously or not, cannot avoid the temptation to have control rather > > than to collaborate. But really make sure you listen. History is full > of > > disasters caused by not listening to that one person. > > > > -Alex > > > > >
