Seems I used the wrong From: address to send this, so resending with the right one ;)
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [VOTE] change of bylaws to alow lazy consensus. Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:47:33 +0100 From: Daniel Gruno <rum...@cord.dk> To: labs@labs.apache.org On 01/15/2014 11:24 AM, jan i wrote: > 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 If these PMC members aren't responding, perhaps they should consider going emeritus? I will try to reach out to some of them, and inquire as to their status. It might have just been a bad time to be changing bylaws, or they may indeed be inactive/no longer interested in this PMC. > > 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. This is really bad. To me, the 'lazy consensus' doesn't seem that lazy (but the PMC does), either the PMC needs to wake up, or this law needs to be scrapped. If the PMC can't make up their mind themselves or have backed into a corner because of the bylaw's requirements, then perhaps the board needs to look at the PMC and elect some new members. It's already been said, I suppose, but I'll say it as well :) With regards, Daniel. > > 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. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
