On 3 January 2014 16:16, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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... >
I agree with you, lazy consensus is a very low bar and in fact a sensible one. My wording might have been a bit too hard, just to contradict going in the other direction. rgds jan I. > > --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 > >
