What are our voting rules for proposals?

[John D. Ament]

All,

We've had a few questions pop up around our voting strategy.  We have a -0 on one proposal, and a -1 on another proposal.  Its now not clear if these proposals can be accepted.

Ken has proposed (with his -0 on the fault tolerance) that we use the Apache style rules.  This would imply that -1's aren't vetoes, but instead we have to get a majority of +1's on accepting something.  Here's a link to the Apache rules.  What do others think, is this a satisfactory way to handle votes on accepting proposals?

John

[Mark Little]

I don’t have a strong opinion other than we probably shouldn’t re-invent the wheel here.

Mark.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/145a8e46-556e-4b34-9250-877cbd2f758a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

Mark Little

mli...@redhat.com

JBoss, by Red Hat

Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)

[Ken Finnigan]

I'm open to whatever makes sense.

And I agree that a single -1 shouldn't derail a proposal if there's sufficient +1's

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Heiko Rupp]

Am Freitag, 21. April 2017 15:52:43 UTC+2 schrieb Ken Finnigan:

I'm open to whatever makes sense.

And I agree that a single -1 shouldn't derail a proposal if there's sufficient +1's

+1 :-)

 

[Mark Struberg]

+1

Usually if someone casts a -1 then this comes with an explanation. And if the reason is good enough (showing some real problem which got overlooked), then other people usually also reconsider their own votes. 

Thus i practice the 3 +1 (+-) works really fine.

LieGrue,

strub

Am Freitag, 21. April 2017 15:52:43 UTC+2 schrieb Ken Finnigan:

I'm open to whatever makes sense.

And I agree that a single -1 shouldn't derail a proposal if there's sufficient +1's

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:49 AM, John D. Ament <john.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

We've had a few questions pop up around our voting strategy.  We have a -0 on one proposal, and a -1 on another proposal.  Its now not clear if these proposals can be accepted.

Ken has proposed (with his -0 on the fault tolerance) that we use the Apache style rules.  This would imply that -1's aren't vetoes, but instead we have to get a majority of +1's on accepting something.  Here's a link to the Apache rules.  What do others think, is this a satisfactory way to handle votes on accepting proposals?

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

[Mike Croft]

+1

It would probably be a good idea to get this documented, either under the eclipse/microprofile repo or the eclipse/microprofile-evolution-process repo (or both). I can get this added myself if there's consensus on what the description should be.

The Apache rules talk about who is permitted to vote - has there been any conclusion on whose votes can count? I remember reading a thread talking about more formal working groups, but don't know if anything came of that. Right now we have the list of Eclipse committers, but that's a relatively small list. We could use the longer list of contributors from the microprofile.io site?

I'll hold off on adding any documentation until there's an answer to that - otherwise the Apache rules linked above seem to cover everything without being overly verbose.

[John D. Ament]

I had already filed https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-evolution-process/issues/25 to handle the update.  I was going to take it, but if you want to feel free.

John

[Emily Jiang]

Thanks John! It is good to have this documented.
Emily

[Werner Keil]

While Apache only states a minimum number of hours or days to vote, it seems a good idea to also define a timeline before a vote closes.

There are at probably a dozen of votes luring in this list that have not come to an end or at least the outcome is not reflected (take the artifacts in the repos that are nowhere near any of the options to vote or the most popular one so far)

Most JCP votes are up for 14 days. The minimum number of votes is 5 (at least in the EC) but maybe given the often rather low participation a minimum of 3 like Apache is more realistic here. 

Werner