On 11/6/13 11:53 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> And the only difference between this and voting.html is that we allow
>> committers to veto as well as PMC members?
>
>There's one or two other minor differences, for example:
>"However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding v
Hi,
> And the only difference between this and voting.html is that we allow
> committers to veto as well as PMC members?
There's one or two other minor differences, for example:
"However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, and all
others are either discouraged from votin
Hi,
> And the only difference between this and voting.html
Well voting.html doesn't clearly explain what lazy consensus and review and
commit actually means is practise ie changes are right away and stay until
vetoed.
> is that we allow committers to veto as well as PMC members?
Yes that's is t
On 11/6/13 11:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> It means that every commit is lazily approved by all the committers. If
>> someone has a problem with any commit, they have to explicitly veto it.
>
>I've also added that no formal vote need to be taken in this case,
>basically it's assumes
Hi,
> The default should be the strictest (Consensus, if I have my
> terminology correct)
Changed. We can always revisit if votes start getting too few votes.
> Also, I think for releases and committers/PMC members, LAZY shouldn't
> be an option. If you can't find 3 votes, something is up ;-)
Ag
Hi,
> It means that every commit is lazily approved by all the committers. If
> someone has a problem with any commit, they have to explicitly veto it.
I've also added that no formal vote need to be taken in this case, basically
it's assumes the committer has voted +1 and it passes right away (
Nope on the default to [LAZY]. When reading it I assumed that was the
technical term for the way we've been voting: at least 3 +1 and no -1.
My bad.
The default should be the strictest (Consensus, if I have my
terminology correct) and if someone wants to deviate, it should be
clearly marked in the
Hi,
> I'd rather we ask folks to vote one way or another when approving committers
> and pmc
> membership.
I think that's fair so I'll change it, and having less than 3 votes hasn't
been an issue in any committer or PMC vote we had so far.
> Yes, but supposedly, HTTP project is the default un
On 11/6/13 9:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I thought most votes to approve committers were consensus, not lazy
>>consensus.
>It varies but more lazy than not I believe. But no issue either way as
>far as I'm concerned. We've not have a vote that's had less than 3 +1 so
>it not been an
Hi,
> I thought most votes to approve committers were consensus, not lazy consensus.
It varies but more lazy than not I believe. But no issue either way as far as
I'm concerned. We've not have a vote that's had less than 3 +1 so it not been
an issue, the last couple of votes I called were "Lazy"
On 11/6/13 6:01 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most
>> actions?
>Because that's generally the Apache default for voting in committers, PMC
>members etc etc. Although it does vary somewhat with projects with
>guidelines/bylaw
Hi,
> Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most
> actions?
Because that's generally the Apache default for voting in committers, PMC
members etc etc. Although it does vary somewhat with projects with
guidelines/bylaws. Being able to veto the voting in of a committer o
I found time for a quick read. Thanks for taking the time to put together
this document.
Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most
actions? I kind of like seeing how many folks vote +1 and who they are.
Doesn't Lazy essentially only solicit vetos?
Did you/Can you che
If it's going to take a Lazy 2/3 Majority to change the rules, then I think it
should take a Lazy 2/3 Majority to approve them in the first place.
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:29 PM
To: dev@flex.apac
Hi,
> 1. Do we really want to allow +0.5 or -0.5 etc.?
Yes as it allowed and people do vote that way.
> does two 0.5 votes make a +1 vote, does two -0.5 constitute a veto, etc
Answer is no to both. only -1 are a vert and only full +1 are counted when
releasing:
"Only a -1 is considered a veto a
I haven't had a chance to read it. I will in about 4 hours.
I'd say the Voting.html only requires majority vote, but I'd rather
iterate on the proposal to see if we can get consensus.
On 11/6/13 4:11 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Anyone else? Do people think they are in a good enough star
Om
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:12 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project voting guidelines
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone else? Do people think they are in a
code change?
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:12 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project voting guidelines
Hi,
Anyone else? Do people think they are in a good enough start to start a VOTE?
And
A couple of things:
1. Do we really want to allow +0.5 or -0.5 etc.? This has a potential to
lead to confusion (does two 0.5 votes make a +1 vote, does two -0.5
constitute a veto, etc) We should probably eliminate this.
2. We need to specify that the approval type (consensus vs. lazy vs. etc.)
Hi,
Anyone else? Do people think they are in a good enough start to start a VOTE?
And would Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members be the voting system to use?
Thanks,
Justin
Yes, that captures the spirit without sounding too legalese ;-)
EdB
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I would suggest that we add something like: "and if it's
>> uncontroversial to do so." Where uncontroversial means: no one
>> objects.
> People could object by vo
Hi,
> I would suggest that we add something like: "and if it's
> uncontroversial to do so." Where uncontroversial means: no one
> objects.
People could object by voting -1 right away but point taken. How about ading
"when there is minimal changes between release candidates"?
Justin
Hi,
"- Release candidate votes can be carry over to the next RC by a
release manager if they so desire"
I would suggest that we add something like: "and if it's
uncontroversial to do so." Where uncontroversial means: no one
objects. Otherwise a release manager could conceivably get the votes
he n
Looks reasonable. It's nice to have it all down in one place as well.
-Mark
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Despite Alex's efforts this seem to have stalled:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/%3cce743d6a.14a96%25aha...@ad
24 matches
Mail list logo
