With lazy consensus, in case of a single candidate, it means “nobody objects”. There is still an implicit vote: those who are in favour send a +1. But if *one single* maintainer objects (and that can be done privately to the current Chief Maintainer), then the candidate does not become chief maintainer.
With a vote, 49% of maintainers may object to a the single candidate nominated, and that candidate still becomes the chief maintainer. So, lazy consensus, as I intended it here, is a *stronger* process than voting, giving a stronger authority to the nominee, with the advantage of not requiring us to go through the motions of a secret vote, while still having a de-facto vote. If we end up with more than one candidate, then of course there needs to be a vote. And if there is an objection to the single candidate, and we don’t end up with a chief maintainer to take over from Lars within the month notice period, then we can still have a formal voting process. Volker > On 20 May 2022, at 09:03, Paul Wicking <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for your invaluable contribution in the role as Chief Maintainer > over the years, Lars! > > Regarding the way forward; I agree with André Somers that lazy consensus will > not do, the QUIP explicitly requires a vote. I also agree that objecting to a > candidate shouldn't require one to also nominate someone else. However, I > consider that rather a moot point; the maintainers are to organize a vote, > and the QUIP offers no guidelines or instructions in whom can be nominated, > that all nominees must be pre-approved, or anything like that. As such, I > believe the maintainers can nominate whomever they see fit for the role and > then cast their votes accordingly. > > However, I'm not sure I agree with André that the winning candidate requires > 50% of the votes, as it is not clear to me what the intention of the QUIP > authors was when they used the phrase "simple majority". A simple majority > can (and certainly often do) mean relative majority in electoral systems. > However, I believe the QUIP offers some leeway for the maintainers to decide > on this, as it clearly states they are to arrange a vote. Bikeshedding > opportunities galore :) > > In any case, I see one nomination in this thread, of Volker, who accepts the > nomination as an honor, and that nomination has even been seconded by another > maintainer. There's also a proposed deadline for coming up with further > nominations (25th May). So to me, it looks like the maintainers are doing > what they are expected to do in accordance with the QUIP. > > Finally, I understand the QUIP such that the vote on the new Chief Maintainer > is to be arranged by and voted on by Maintainers only. As such, please > consider this the attempt of one approver to offer some guidance for the > select group of Maintainers. I would like to congratulate Volker, as well as > any possible future nominees, on the nomination for the role. I trust the > maintainers will elect a person that will act as a unifying figure within the > community in the role of Chief Maintainer. > > Kind regards, > Paul > > Disclaimer: though employed by The Qt Company, this email is solely in the > capacity of being an inividual contributor to the Qt Project and reflects my > personal perspective only. > > ________________________________________ > From: Development <[email protected]> on behalf of André > Somers <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 05:43 > To: Volker Hilsheimer; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Development] New Chief Maintainer > > Hi Volker, > > On 19-05-2022 22:42, Volker Hilsheimer wrote: >>> On 18 May 2022, at 11:23, André Somers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18-05-2022 11:19, André Somers wrote: >>>> As I understand it [1], this needs a formal vote. However, the QUIP >>>> does not specify a full procedure. I would suggest: >>> And then I forget the actual link: >>> >>> https://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0002.html#how-to-become-chief-maintainer >> >> Thanks André. >> >> The QUIP asks for a simple-majority vote of all Maintainers. Either way, >> let’s see what other nominations we get. >> >> May I propose that until end of Wednesday 25th, Maintainers can nominate >> other candidates (including themselves), and then we can have a vote amongst >> those candidates nominated (the simple majority is enough as per QUIP). The >> QUIP doesn’t explicitly require the candidate to be a Maintainer. >> >> If we have only one candidate by end of Wednesday, then we can use lazy >> consensus, i.e. as long as none of the maintainers object to the candidate, >> that candidate becomes chief maintainer. Although I’d expect that whoever >> has an objection to one candidate also nominates another candidate. > > The procedure outlined in the linked QUIP is substantially different > from the procedure outlined for becoming a Maintainer. The wording to me > suggest we need an actual vote in this case, not a lazy consensus. The > "simple majority" refers to the needed number of votes out of the quorum > (simple majority meaning >50%), not the simplicity of the voting > procedure IMO. > > So no, I don't think a lazy consensus will do. And no, I don't think > it's having an objection to a candidate means that you also know a good > other candidate willing to take up the baton instead. > > Cheers, > > André > > >> >> Volker >> > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
