Hey Nicholas, See my comment on the vote thread to update the bylaws. Agree, pointing to http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting is the right thing. Doug pointed out to me offline that there's a project (Apache Steve) for STV that they'll be switching to (currently only OpenTSV IIUC).
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <[email protected]> wrote: > Owen's proposal sounds good in general. There are slight variances of STV. > I guess Owen probably means the one used in Apache board voting > (http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting). We should add a link to their > wiki in our bylaws. > > > How about tiebreaker? What if there are only two candidates and they get > exactly the same number of votes? > > > Tsz-Wo > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Robert Evans <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:10 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarify bylaws on PMC chair voting > > Vinod, > > I don't see what the PMC Chair does has any barring on how we select them. > Yes I agree that a -1 will not be an issue. That is why I said "However, > I don't think in practice it really matters if we allow for vetoes or > not." I too am +1 for Owen's suggestion, but I would like to see a vote > thread with the exact diff of the change to the bylaws. > > --Bobby > > On 11/13/12 12:47 PM, "Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>+1 to Owen's suggestion. >> >>Bobby, recall that PMC Chair is (just) a representative who communicates >>with the board on behalf of the PMC, and not any sort of "leader" (See >>http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair); all the project decisions are >>driven by the PMC collectively. Given that, one should not expect vetoes >>at all in this vote. >> >>Thanks, >>+Vinod >> >>On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Robert Evans wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>
