On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:33 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2014 11:59 AM, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 2 January 2014 23:04, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 2 January 2014 19:32, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> >> >> This proposal is identical to the one issued before christmas, but >> >> based on a suggestion now formulated as a formal VOTE. >> >> >> >> This change in the bylaws [2] requires 2/3 vote +1 of the PMC members. >> >> >> >> VOTE runs until 19 January 2014. >> >> >> >> Vote +1 if you agree to to following change of bylaws: >> >> >> >> >> >> - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The lab creation >> >> requires PMC lazy concensus, if no PMC sends a mail with -1 to >> >> l...@apache.org within the lazy consensus period, the lab request is >> >> accepted. >> > >> > The voting period is not stated; I think it probably should be > specified. >> > >> > How about: >> > >> > Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. >> > The creation of the lab requires a PMC lazy consensus vote (no -1 >> > votes, 72 hours). >> > >> >> from >> >> - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The creation of >> >> the lab requires a PMC lazy consensus vote >> >> (at least three +1 and no -1, 72 hours). >> >> >> >> >> >> Reasoning: >> >> >> >> The charter [1] and homepage [2] for labs says: >> >> >> >> - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The creation of >> >> the lab requires a PMC lazy consensus vote >> >> (at least three +1 and no -1, 72 hours). >> > >> > BTW, I've just realised that merely dropping the word "lazy" would >> > have resolved the ambiguity. >> > However, IMO full consensus approval is too strong a requirement. >> > >> > +1 (non-binding) provided the voting period is defined. >> >> After further thought: >> >> -1 (non-binding) for the following reason: >> >> The original voting rules required a consensus vote, i.e. any -1 was a >> veto, regardless of how many +1s. >> >> The proposed rule requires a lazy consensus vote, with the same -1 veto. >> >> So any PMC member can veto any Lab. >> It would be necessary to get the person to withdraw their vote in >> order to start the Lab. >> >> Release votes are specifically majority votes for that reason - to >> stop a single person blocking a release. >> [However of course an RM normally does not override the -1 if it >> because of a serious issue with the release] >> >> Is that really what is wanted? > > actually, we should not require a vote at all. Today anybody can start a > project at github. We require that only committers can use labs, isnt that > enough ? the more red tape we require the less number of labs will be > created. > > please consider if labs should be easy to use, or so difficult that te > project in reality is unused (as it is right now)
With your fix to proper lazy consensus, I don't see how that's so "difficult" - seems an incredibly familiar and low bar to me. The original rationale[1] requiring some sort of bar is still sound - it's just that the bar was a bit too high. So, I'd wish us to just clean that up with this vote and get on with it... --tim [1] - http://labs.apache.org/faq.html#q5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
