On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system > with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this > consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's > time. Our goal here is to achieve consensus, not to hold votes. So, I'm > going to treat this as a lazy consensus issues. I'm going to watch this > thread for an additional 72 hours. If anyone objects to this consensus, > send along a brief summary of your objection with a -1. If there are, in > fact, substantive objections, I'll organize a separate vote process to > resolve this. Please do not debate objections here, we'll do that later if > we have to. Everyone's had a fair opportunity to state their opinion, so > the only thing we're doing now is ensuring that no one is harboring a > serious objection that I have somehow overlooked. Acquiescing in this > process does not prejudice the discussion of changing the PMC. >
I'd prefer we stick with consensus but not enough to vote against this. However as no one has mentioned this I do think its worth pointing out that when using supermajority instead of consensus or simple majority then the phrasing of the vote becomes important. Eg. Say 16 people participate in a vote then: "Throw the guy out" needs 5 -1s to stop it happening "Let the guy stay" needs 12 +1s to make it happen. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
