On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > No more so than they already had. >
It does Joe, let me give you a more clear example. Lets imagine i've done something that you deem shows i'm a terrible incubator mentor, and its not the first time. There's a big debate within the PMC, no clear consensus, so in the end you say enough is enough and call a vote to remove me so i don't do any more damage - a vote on removing ant. With this new supermajority approach you'd need 75% or more of voters to agree with you to get me gone. Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs support - a vote on letting ant stay on. That sounds like you're being nice, but in fact you're being clever, because now you only need 25% of voters to vote -1 and i'm gone. 25% is much easier to get than the 75% in the previous vote example. The problem here i think is that the policy is being rushed through and people are only thinking of the voting people to the PMC case whereas the policy is going to apply much more widely that - to all votes on personal matters - so lots of scope for wording bias. Isn't this the case? Apologies in advance for the noise if my logic is screwed up somewhere. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
