The current bylaws state that the PMC chair recommendation to the apache board should be based off of lazy consensus. That means that any PMC member can -1(veto) a candidate so long as they give a valid reason with the veto. The validity of the reason for the veto if challenged can be confirmed by another PMC member. I am fine with the proposal to use STV. However, I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or not. If someone really feels strongly enough to veto a candidate, they would also feel strongly enough make their reason known during the voting and discussion on the candidate. If the reason is valid enough to withstand a challenge I would suspect it would also be valid enough to influence any voting process we set up. I don't care what voting process we use, I just care that the bylaws are clarified to pick one that can handle one or more candidates.
-- Bobby On 11/12/12 5:53 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <[email protected]> wrote: >Thanks, Nicholas. > >I think the vote for PMC chair should be a straight majority vote with STV >used in the case of more than 2 choices. Using +1 and/or -1's when voting >in a multiple choice seems confused and likely to cause more problems than >it solves. > >-- Owen
