Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec

[Matej Novotny <manovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>From my understanding the spec leader has no special power/priviledge in eclipse projects, e.g. his vote is same as any other commiter vote.
And yes, if there is a tight match of active votes, you very likely want to revisit the idea.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Otavio Santana" <otaviopolianasantana@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "cdi developer discussions" <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:46:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> 
> I like the majority vote with lazy consensus; however, when the vote has an
> equilibrium in several +1 and -1, it worths locking a meeting only to talk
> about it and vote again. Even after this vote number is drawing, the spec
> leader has the Casting vote.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:36 AM Matej Novotny < manovotn@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> 
> 
> Giving anyone veto rights sounds very dangerous to me. Ideally, you want to
> reach full consensus whenever possible but you cannot allow potential
> blocking by any one person indefinitely.
> 
> Personally, I am +1 for simple majority with lazy consensus (for that we have
> a way to handle commiters who don't partake in vote).
> 
> Regards
> Matej
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gurkan Erdogdu" < gerdogdu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > To: "cdi developer discussions" < cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:07:43 AM
> > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And that is never a good practice in an open-source project. Just my
> > thoughts…
> > It is used in ASF, https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > 
> > It is just an option :)
> > 
> > Regards.
> > Gurkan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 17 Feb 2021, at 11:00, Ivar Grimstad <
> > ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > 
> > I think I would avoid that since it effectively gives a committer veto
> > rights. And that is never a good practice in an open-source project. Just
> > my
> > thoughts...
> > 
> > Ivar
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:44 AM Gurkan Erdogdu < gerdogdu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > Option C: No -1 blocker vote
> > 
> > It can be simple as no -1 blocker vote from any committer. If there are
> > some
> > -1’s, we need to clear it before accepting….
> > Regards.
> > Gurkan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 17 Feb 2021, at 03:06, Scott Stark < starksm64@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > As of tomorrow there will be 8 committers, so 5 would be a simple majority
> > while 6 would be a super majority. In either option, lazy consensus should
> > also be used so that silence implies approval. You have to voice opposition
> > to be counted on the nay side of a vote.
> > 
> > Until it proven to be necessary or desired, I would prefer starting with a
> > simple majority decision process.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:56 PM Emily Jiang < emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In today's CDI meeting, we discussed how to make decisions when there are
> > split views. As you know, after some lengthy discussion, we need to make
> > decisions for some technical issues.
> > 
> > I took a todo and brought this up today's Jakarta EE spec committee meeting
> > today for some guidance. In the meeting, I was told that each spec has the
> > freedom to choose the decision making process. Eclipse Foundation might
> > come
> > up with a recommendation but the adoption is optional. With this in mind,
> > we
> > can make our own decision making process. After we have agreed on the
> > decision making process, we need to document it clearly.
> > 
> > A couple of suggestions:
> > 
> > Option A: simple majority of committers' votes.
> > 
> > e.g. if we have 9 committers and solution A is put up for a vote,
> > solution A will be accepted if 5 or more committers vote +1.
> > 
> > Non-committers are encouraged to vote but they are counted as non-binding
> > votes.
> > 
> > 
> > Option B: super majority (2/3) of committers' votes.
> > 
> > e.g. if we have 9 committers and solution A is put up for a vote,
> > solution A will be accepted if 6 or more committers vote +1.
> > 
> > Non-committers are encouraged to vote but they are counted as non-binding
> > votes.
> > 
> > Feel free to add more options.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Emily
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Ivar Grimstad
> > Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation
> > Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> 
> 
> --
> Otávio Santana
> 
> 
> twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
> site: http://about.me/otaviojava
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>