potiuk commented on code in PR #189: URL: https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/pull/189#discussion_r1821371699
########## source/newpmcmember.md: ########## @@ -55,117 +84,29 @@ becomes obvious that we should invite them. This encourages them and keeps them enthusiastic. If we leave it too long, then we risk them becoming disillusioned. -On the `private@` list we can each say exactly what we feel about each person, -with no holds barred. Keep the discussion concise. The praise part can -be done later in public. Keep in mind, however, that if the member becomes -a PMC member later, they will have access to this discussion. - Let the Vote thread run for one week. -A positive result is achieved by **Consensus Approval**: at least 3 +1 -votes and no vetoes. +A positive result is achieved by **Consensus Approval**: more +1 votes +than -1 votes. Review Comment: This is a great question. I do not think PMC member candidate should be subject to veto - the only change that could be veto that I was aware of was "code change". Which makes perfect sense. You don't design by committee, so majority vote on the code change makes little sense. Bad design and bad code should be veto-able with sufficient explanation -and you can always rewrite, change, improve design of the change to respond to veto. On the other hand vetoing person is not bypassable. You can't "change" a person. Veto almost universally means "I don't want this person in and nothing is going to change my mind", whch I think is far too much power for one person to have. We had a PMC member in the past who was actively harming the community and we made the person quit the PMC eventually, But if that person could actively block any new PMC member from being elected for example by just announcing veto, that would be really really bad. IMHO I think (and that's repeating my comment) we need to clarify the Apache Voting page here and be explicit where "commiter" and "PMC member" voting is in https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. I know it is wider discussion than what's in this PR but IMHO that page plainly misses any mention of the "people voting". How I interpret voting for PMC members and Commiters looking at this page - this is a "Procedural vote". In the absence of other voting type metioned on that page, this is the only one that fits: ``` 1. Procedural 2. Code modifications 3. Package releases ``` ########## source/newpmcmember.md: ########## @@ -55,117 +84,29 @@ becomes obvious that we should invite them. This encourages them and keeps them enthusiastic. If we leave it too long, then we risk them becoming disillusioned. -On the `private@` list we can each say exactly what we feel about each person, -with no holds barred. Keep the discussion concise. The praise part can -be done later in public. Keep in mind, however, that if the member becomes -a PMC member later, they will have access to this discussion. - Let the Vote thread run for one week. -A positive result is achieved by **Consensus Approval**: at least 3 +1 -votes and no vetoes. +A positive result is achieved by **Consensus Approval**: more +1 votes +than -1 votes. Review Comment: This is a great question. I do not think PMC member candidate should be subject to veto - the only change that could be veto that I was aware of was "code change". Which makes perfect sense. You don't design by committee, so majority vote on the code change makes little sense. Bad design and bad code should be veto-able with sufficient explanation -and you can always rewrite, change, improve design of the change to respond to veto. On the other hand vetoing person is not bypassable. You can't "change" a person. Veto almost universally means "I don't want this person in and nothing is going to change my mind", whch I think is far too much power for one person to have. We had a PMC member in the past who was actively harming the community and we made the person quit the PMC eventually, But if that person could actively block any new PMC member from being elected for example by just announcing veto, that would be really really bad. IMHO I think (and that's repeating my comment) we need to clarify the Apache Voting page here and be explicit where "commiter" and "PMC member" voting is in https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. I know it is wider discussion than what's in this PR but IMHO that page plainly misses any mention of the "people voting". How I interpret voting for PMC members and Commiters looking at this page - this is a "Procedural vote". In the absence of other voting types metioned on that page, this is the only one that fits: ``` 1. Procedural 2. Code modifications 3. Package releases ``` -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
