top posting. Today is a sad day, nearly 2 months effort come to an end, and the result is to say it the least disappointing.
The Vote tally for binding votes is as follows: Santiago Gala +1 Geir Magnusson Jr +1 Tim Williams +1 Niall Pemberton +1 J Aaron Farr +1ay Simone Tripodi +1 Danny Angus +1 Simone Gianny +1 No binding -1 was received. A number of non-binding +1 and a single -1 was received. Since 2/3 +1 is required to change bylaws, the bylaws will NOT be changed. I find it disappointing and a disaster for the project, that a large number of PMC members does not react on a vote thread nor on a personal mail. The following PMC members have not shown any sign of communication: Brett Porter Erik Abele Gregor Rothfuss Jukka Zitting Noel J. Bergman Reinhard Poetz Garrett Rooney Scott Sanders Sander Temme Ted Leung I highly advice, that the PMC-Chair add something like to following the next board report (special attention section): ------- A committer have tried twice to start a lab, this requires lazy consensus and 3 +1 PMC votes. The committer failed to get enough votes to start the lab, due to lack of responses. A non-labs committer have twice started a vote to change the bylaws (lazy consensus) over a period of 1.5 month. The last vote ended with 8 +1, no -1 and 10 PMC members did not communicate at all (even though they were sent direct mail to their apache mail id). On that background the project is in a deadlock, with a non-functional PMC group. The Board is requested to help reestablish a working PMC group. ------- On a personal note, the merit required to become a committer in labs seems very high, I have a number of ideas how we e.g. could make the homepage more inviting (we want committers to use labs or ?), but issuing patches to a non-responding PMC group is no fun. have a nice day rgds jan I. On 10 January 2014 19:02, Simone Gianni <simo...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > Simone Gianni > > > 2014/1/2 jan i <j...@apache.org> > > > 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. > > > > 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). > > > > However the foundations glossary [3] defines lazy consensus today as: > > > > *Lazy consensus*(Also called 'lazy approval'.) A decision-making policy > > which assumes general consent if no responses are posted within a defined > > period. For example, "I'm going to commit this by lazy consensus if > no-one > > objects within the next three days." Also see Consensus > > Approval< > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval > > >, > > Majority > > Approval < > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval > > >, > > and the description of the voting > > process <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>. > > > > > > rgds > > > > jan I. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_11_15.txt > > > > > > [2] http://labs.apache.org/bylaws.html > > [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html > > >
