+1 non-binding. Thanks for driving this, looking forward to see the
positive impact.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:47 PM Carin Meier wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
>
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:08 AM Carin Meier wrote:
> Reminder - vote ends tomorrow morning at 6:00 am EST
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:46 PM Carin Meier wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
>
+1
Thanks everyone for your input and participation. Thanks to Carin for driving
this.
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 6:07 AM, Carin Meier wrote:
>
> Reminder - vote ends tomorrow morning at 6:00 am EST
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:46 PM Carin Meier wrote:
>>
>> This vote is to adopt the document
Reminder - vote ends tomorrow morning at 6:00 am EST
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:46 PM Carin Meier wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current
+1 (binding)
On 30.10.18 12:37, Steffen Rochel wrote:
+1 non-binding
Thanks for driving the vote Carin!
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:31 AM Carin Meier wrote:
Sure PPMC stands for Podling Project Management Committee -
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - I updated the document to
+1 non-binding
Thanks for driving the vote Carin!
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:31 AM Carin Meier wrote:
> Sure PPMC stands for Podling Project Management Committee -
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - I updated the document to
> have ",(Podling Project Management Committee)," in
Sure PPMC stands for Podling Project Management Committee -
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html - I updated the document to
have ",(Podling Project Management Committee)," in the both sections with
a link where the abbreviation is first introduced.
- Carin
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at
+1 non-binding
One minor thing first: can you define PPMC in the doc? It's brought in
without saying what it stands for. Even the link it goes to just talks
about PMC and there's no mention of PMCC... so I'm not sure what the
definition is.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:07 AM Carin Meier wrote:
>
+1 since the Beam model is much more open than the current one.
Here my two cents to the discussion:
You can see that in the past was different,, but we had evolved as
foundation. As general recommendation, the new way is to spend less effort
in ad-hoc bylaws on every project/podling and adopt
Feel free to change to "rights" if that is more welcoming and suits better.
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:24 PM, Tianqi Chen wrote:
>
> Also from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html there is no
> mention of the word "privileges", maybe "right" is a better term.
>
> I feel there is
Also from https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html there is no
mention of the word "privileges", maybe "right" is a better term.
I feel there is some wisdom in choose not to emphasize the entitlements
being given in the role. After all, the PMC/committership is given by the
community,
As far as I recall from what Jim said
"The ASF strives for consensus, and votes and voting are used, primarily,
to gauge that. It's not used to divide a community; it's used to UNITE it.
Voting is used when collaboration and consensus building *FAILS*. It should
be rare."
In this context, we all
The committer/PMC privileges is derived from
https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html.
The term abuse is very subjective (in this case) - If an opinion or Vote is
against something they prefer, it can be termed as Abuse. I would expect
those who differ with the vote to take that as
well, if something needs consensus to pass, then saying “you need to keep
discussing until consensus is reached” seems like it could be abused by
someone who was just willing to not accept a verdict and continues to push,
right? And if someone were to walk away saying “I don’t want to discuss
this
May be we can adopt this.
https://struts.apache.org/bylaws.html#voting
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Carin Meier wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
> have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
> on
-0 but keep it in if you want
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM Chris Olivier wrote:
> or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that after
> a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying to
> just wear everyone down even though the outcome is
Chris,
Is there are rewording that you would find more acceptable? Again, we can
have more time to edit and revise the document. There is not a time limit
on this. I might have been too hasty to start the vote thinking the
discussion was wrapped up.
- Carin
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:50 PM Chris
or another example if something is downvoted, this also implies that after
a vote is over, it’s approprorate to continue pushing the subject trying to
just wear everyone down even though the outcome is clear. We’ve seen this
before, actually.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:41 PM Chris Olivier wrote:
-1 “strive to meet consensus”? This seems to imply the consensus is the
natural expected state. So in the case where someone submits that we should
start a nuclear war, then our bylaws would state that we should all try to
agree to start a nuclear war.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tianqi Chen
Tianqi - I added it the end of the document.
If anyone feels that they need more time to further discuss/revise the
changes, I'm fine with ending/suspending the current vote and resuming it
in the future to enable more collaboration.
Just let me know.
Best,
Carin
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:41
Hi Carin:
Sorry for the last minute request, but given the way we write down the
PMC, committer privileges, I feel we need to add an additional line:
- "PMC/committer should strive to be diplomatic and reach consensus with
discussion when possible."
Since I don't really want us to give
+1
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM Tianqi Chen
wrote:
> +1
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier wrote:
>
> > This vote is to adopt the document
> >
> >
>
+1
Tianqi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> to replace the current document
>
+1 non-binding. As mentioned in various threads, this model should be much
more scalable. I like the idea of hierarchies of contributors on the
project.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM Carin Meier wrote:
> This vote is to adopt the document
>
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
