On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >...
> Specifically, we (CouchDB) see voting as the failure mode of a > discussion (a useful one non-the-less), or as a last-step requirement > to officiate a particular set of project-level decisions (that are > fully enumerated in the bylaws). > I very much agree with this sentiment, as does the Apache Subversion project. In the project's 14 year history, we have held (maybe) about FOUR actual votes. EVER. And I'm talking both technical and community-issue votes. I'm really kind of guessing here. I can recall only two, but there must have been a few others. If a community cannot reach consensus, and needs a vote instead, then something is wrong (IMO). To the concrete question, the Subversion project never calls a strict [VOTE] for new committers or PMC members. We discuss first, and that sets the direction. People throw out +1 messages, but that is "sure, make it so" rather than a true vote. Whenever somebody says "wait a minute", then we do. We don't have formal rules around this stuff, since a general goal of consensus is so ingrained into the community. Cheers, -g
