On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a
larger group is much more likely to have noisy vetoes by requiring that
successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to
Hi,
following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion
on how we vote on nominated IPMC members.
We had the case were one person was nominated and received three +1.
Another voter had concerns an voted -1. The vote has been marked as
failed, because no consensus could be found.
One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a
larger group is much more likely to have noisy vetoes by requiring that
successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to some
condition on n and m. Majority requires n m, strict Apache consensus
Christian
My opinion only...
1. 172 PPMC members is a lot (I'm assuming you mean PPMC) (IPMC is defined
here: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html).
As far as I know, PPMC members is a superset of committers. Even
here,
PPMC votes and Committer votes are
John,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote:
1. 172 PPMC members is a lot (I'm assuming you mean PPMC) (IPMC is defined
here: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html).
No, I actually mean the IPMC:
101 - 105 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
