Roy said a while ago that for (P)PMC votes, a -1 is a veto. It is basically saying, "I cannot work with this person". And corollary, "I should not have to".
Cheers, -g On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 20:54 Hen <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting. > > Foundation-wise, all our votes are Majority Voting (new member vote, board > vote (ish), votes by the board themselves, omnibus voting). There's little > expectation/requirement of consensus. > > Jakarta/Commons wise new committer votes felt that way (Majority); however > both of those were large PMCs. Disagreement was more likely than on a > smaller PMC so the reality was that we needed Majority instead of > Consensus. The mantra was always "votes on code (technical) had veto, > everything else was majority". But it was also, to your point, a strong > culture to avoid relying on majority-overrule of a veto. Thus new release > votes always felt like Consensus voting even if the rule says Majority > voting. > > I think the release voting ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes ) is similar to > new committer votes. It's Majority Voting, but the Release Manager does > hold a veto. I'd expect a PMC Chair to have a similar role in a new > committer vote. "As Chair I consider the -1 from Alice to be a blocking > veto; we need to discuss more". That doesn't work with Podlings though as > there's no (local) buck-stops-here chair. > > It feels like there's an inconsistency between > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html and > https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html . Either we update > newcommitter.html to explain that it's a Majority vote, but explain how > unusual it should be to see -1 after discussion; or voting.html needs > updating to explain that most (or all?) projects use Consensus voting to > add committers (and presumably PMC members too). > > On most projects using consensus voting for committers/pmc; it feels that > it's hard to tell the difference. If there are no -1s, a consensus and > majority vote look the same. :) > > Hen > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > Way back when each project having a set of bylaws/guidelines was > > fashionable I looked through them and there is some variation but a -1 > on a > > committer or PMC member is generally treated as a veto. That being said > any > > objections should really come up in the discussion stage (and hopefully > > mitigated) before a vote is called so a -1 vote should be rare. If you > look > > at [1] [2] you see that consensus voting allows for a veto (with a > reason) > > and AFAIK most projects use consensus approval when adding committers/PMC > > members. It may be some don’t realise this as a -1 has never come up. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > 2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
