The following page talks about finding and building consensus. For the items you brought up, I personally tried to make it clear what the process is with discussion-proposal-vote mechanism and as you said this was ignored and went straight to vote. So consensus building was skipped and it was asked for directly. https://community.apache.org/committers/decisionMaking.html
The page states: "The word “consensus” is a bit ambiguous in English, and so can lead to some misunderstandings of intent when we use it in the context of project decisions. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees on all details. Rather, it means that the project, as a whole, has arrived a decision, or at least a compromise, that everyone can live with." So the community needs to itself figure out how to agree to disagree. Please do not think I see you being wrong. My previous view was that we could find consensus with the classic democratic votes and not using -1 as a veto. Now you are stating the -1 were a veto. So let's forget the subjects that we were voting about, it is clear we are failing to find the consensus on just the voting process. I intentionally left out the voting process from the discussion-proposal-vote guideline since I knew it would have been too big of a step to take. I will start a discussion thread for how we can find a way to vote and agree on a mixed result and then walk through the process to get us a guideline for voting. Now how voting works is something we can vote on, since it does not change code. (Well I guess everything is a code change if you write it down somewhere). I can start the discussion after you get feedback from Brian, if you want to check that first. My understanding is that we need to figure this out ourselves or why would the Apache bother to mature us? We are failing at the basics. The latest info we got from Brian however stated that -1 only blocks releases. https://lists.apache.org/thread/sofswb9ol7srncj6fqwz1ohtq2x550ky I will ping you with a DM tomorrow. Let's get the voting rules/guidelines cleared. Toni On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 6:02 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Toni > > There were multiple technical objections, repeated again and again. I won't > go through them again, but let's say that there were no -1 "just in case". > I hope we can agree at least on that. > > There was and there is no "consensus", there is just people tired of > discussing and seeing their objections ignored or answered by people in a > patronizing way. > > You linked Apache Kafka rules. I appreciate that they have decided > something together, but again, this is not Apache Kafka. This is Apache > Kie. And unless we decide that Kafka rules are our rules, they are somehwat > irrelevant. Good as ideas, good as a starting point but again, WE, as a > community, have to decide to adopt those rules. or not. > > And on a side note - consensus means that we all agree on something > relevant for the topic and there is a status where there is no consensus, > otherwise the word is meaningless. Let's try not to redefine words. > > Regards > > P. > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 4:19 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > It says: > > > > "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide > > with the veto a technical justification showing why the change is bad > > (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A > veto > > without a justification is invalid and has no weight." > > > > But it is up to the project to find consensus with the methods they > select. > > For example Kafka has presets for voting and what type of voting is > > required for each change type. > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=34019842#Bylaws-Actions > > > > So now the question is what does this community think justifies a veto? > > > > --- > > > > "At least we should have tried to discuss the objections and move to some > > form of consensus." > > > > Yes! The method where we go directly to a vote is not optimal for a > healthy > > community, but I was under the impression we still formed a consensus. > > Consensus does not mean we all agree. It means we agree on how we > disagree. > > > > Toni > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 3:15 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Tony, > > > > > > thank you for your reply. > > > > > > The Apache policy however DOES NOT says this. > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > At least we should have tried to discuss the objections and move to > some > > > form of consensus. > > > > > > I can't see how htis has happened. > > > > > > Probably I am missing something fundamental. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:47 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > For everything that has been proposed there has not been a clear > > security > > > > risk or performance issue, so following the original Apache guideline > > -1 > > > is > > > > a vote against it, not a veto. Every +1 has a justification on the > same > > > > level as the -1 have. Both sides have had pros and cons, but neither > > > > solution breaks anything for the project. We might be swapping one > > > problem > > > > to another, but that is I guess how the world works. > > > > > > > > Toni > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > thank you for the answer. > > > > > > > > > > this is surprising to me, since these are clearly code > modifications > > > and > > > > > they should fall under the rules for code modifications. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > > > I will speak with the mentors. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:15 AM Alex Porcelli < > porce...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Paolo, > > > > > > > > > > > > Both proposals passed, as for proposals -1 see not veto. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first proposal is already under development. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please reach out to mentors to clarify about Apache policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 4:33 AM Paolo Bizzarri < > pibi...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am talking about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Including Docs, Examples, and Website(s) in Apache KIE 10.1 > and > > > > > beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Removing `build-chain`, the custom Jenkins framework, and > > > > structuring > > > > > > the > > > > > > > codebase in a duo-repo setup for 10.2 onwards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that both these two proposals have been > > > rejected, > > > > > > since > > > > > > > they had got both binding -1 and these are the Apache rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there was no explicit mention that they got rejected and > > people > > > > > got a > > > > > > > bit uncertain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we confirm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
