Re: Apache Maturity Model Consensus Building contradicts Incubator rules?

[Isabel Drost-Fromm]

When consolidating, you might also check that things are consistent with 

https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Isabel


Am 20. März 2019 13:43:02 MEZ schrieb Christofer Dutz 
:
>Hi all,
>
>I’m currently working on finishing some things in preparation of
>graduation … one thing we were requested to address, is to do an
>assessment of the Apache Maturity Model for our project.
>
>Within this, there’s a rule:
>CS40 - In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and
>are justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting
>rules defined in CS30.
>
>This sort of contradicts the rules for incubating projects specified by
>the Incubator, which says:
>https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines
>
>- Consensus
>Approval
>– Consensus approval requires 3
>binding +1
>votes and no -1 votes
>(vetoes).
>
>So for Consensus Approval there are Vetoes and code changes apply for
>Lazy Consensus. If there are actually vetoes for code changes, I can
>imagine that quite some projects would stall instantly.
>
>
>The incubator guidelines state for adding (or removing) people to(or
>from) committer and PPMC status, these guidelines claim them being
>Consensus Approval, which allows vetoes.
>
>Would be cool if this could be streamlined to be more aligned. Right
>now I claim that the PLC4X project simply fails CS40 as this
>contradicts the incubator rules.
>
>Chris

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

Re: Apache Maturity Model Consensus Building contradicts Incubator rules?

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Chirs,

I agree some disagreements exist. Practically I suppose adding (or
removing) people to(or from) committer and (P)PMC status is a very
sensitive thing, so there should be an opportunity of veto.

While process changes and releases can't be vetoed, adding committers or
PMCs should be consensus only.

If it is the Majority approval it is always easy for some commercial
company to take full control of any project. In this case, some individual
PMC has almost no influence on PMC members/Committers. All people from a
company will generate as much +1's as needed to elect new PMCs/Committers,
even if this one true volunteer will vote -1.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

ср, 20 мар. 2019 г. в 15:43, Christofer Dutz :

> Hi all,
>
> I’m currently working on finishing some things in preparation of
> graduation … one thing we were requested to address, is to do an assessment
> of the Apache Maturity Model for our project.
>
> Within this, there’s a rule:
> CS40 - In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and are
> justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting rules
> defined in CS30.
>
> This sort of contradicts the rules for incubating projects specified by
> the Incubator, which says:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines
>
> - Consensus Approval<
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval> –
> Consensus approval requires 3 binding<
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#binding-votes> +1 votes and
> no -1 votes (vetoes >).
>
> So for Consensus Approval there are Vetoes and code changes apply for Lazy
> Consensus. If there are actually vetoes for code changes, I can imagine
> that quite some projects would stall instantly.
>
>
> The incubator guidelines state for adding (or removing) people to(or from)
> committer and PPMC status, these guidelines claim them being Consensus
> Approval, which allows vetoes.
>
> Would be cool if this could be streamlined to be more aligned. Right now I
> claim that the PLC4X project simply fails CS40 as this contradicts the
> incubator rules.
>
> Chris
>

Apache Maturity Model Consensus Building contradicts Incubator rules?

[Christofer Dutz]

Hi all,

I’m currently working on finishing some things in preparation of graduation … 
one thing we were requested to address, is to do an assessment of the Apache 
Maturity Model for our project.

Within this, there’s a rule:
CS40 - In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and are 
justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting rules defined in 
CS30.

This sort of contradicts the rules for incubating projects specified by the 
Incubator, which says:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DefaultProjectGuidelines

- Consensus 
Approval – 
Consensus approval requires 3 
binding +1 votes 
and no -1 votes (vetoes).

So for Consensus Approval there are Vetoes and code changes apply for Lazy 
Consensus. If there are actually vetoes for code changes, I can imagine that 
quite some projects would stall instantly.


The incubator guidelines state for adding (or removing) people to(or from) 
committer and PPMC status, these guidelines claim them being Consensus 
Approval, which allows vetoes.

Would be cool if this could be streamlined to be more aligned. Right now I 
claim that the PLC4X project simply fails CS40 as this contradicts the 
incubator rules.

Chris