[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
|
I like this idea as I am also leaning towards having it primarily on GH.
While at it, we should probably clean up the Wiki; it is massively outdated :-D
I'll take a look at it.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ladislav Thon" <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "cdi developer discussions" <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 9:50:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
>
> I recently noticed this:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxrs-api/wiki/Committer-Conventions and it
> seemed quite reasonable to me. I don't mind if we have different rules, but
> I like how theirs are short, easy to understand and follow, and present on
> GitHub. We could put them on GitHub wiki as well I think?
>
> LT
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:43 AM Matej Novotny < manovotn@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
>
>
> Reviving this thread, I just want to sum it up and decide where to capture
> the result so that it's visible and not forgotten.
>
> Reading up on this thread, most people agreed on using *simple majority with
> lazy consensus*.
> This means any vote needs more than 50% +1 votes from committers and silence
> implies approval.
>
> Now, the question is - where do we put this? There are two places I can think
> of:
> * Somewhere in Eclipse website (probably Governance tab)
> - https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.cdi/governance
> * GH page of project, into README
> - https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/cdi
>
> @Antoine, @Scott do you have any idea how to edit the eclipse project page?
>
> Regards
> Matej
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" < antoine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > To: "cdi developer discussions" < cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:24:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> >
> > +1 for simple majority
> >
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 18 févr. 2021 à 00:23, Jason Greene < jason.greene@xxxxxxxxxx > a
> > écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> > I think for it to truly be a neutral vote, it has to be a deferral to the
> > non-neutral voters. So effectively your latter, but a simpler definition is
> > essentially the majority of YES/NO votes decides the outcome (non-vote is
> > another method of neutrality),
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2021, at 5:08 PM, Emily Jiang < emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> >
> > +1 Reza!
> > I think we are in agreement to go with a simple majority with no veto power
> > from any one of us. Basically we only count +1 and lazy consensus when
> > judging whether we have got a simple majority.
> >
> > One more question: if someone has voted 0 (neither approval nor
> > disapproval),
> > should we count towards approval or deduct one from the base when working
> > out the simple majority (e.g, we have 8 CDI committers, if 2 committers
> > voted 0, we reduce the overall cmmitter base to 6. In this way, 4 votes
> > will
> > be a simple majority)?
> >
> > Emily
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:33 PM Reza Rahman < reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think a simple majority with no veto right is the best way to make
> > progress
> > at this juncture. We really need to get Jakarta EE innovating once again,
> > even if decisions aren't perfect or make everyone happy at a given point in
> > time.
> > On 2/17/21 8:27 AM, Werner Keil wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don’t think that’s how those Projects at Eclipse (Jakarta EE) now work
> > anyway.
> >
> > In theory there could be non-binding votes by people on the Mailing list
> > but
> > only the 7 committers listed here
> > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.cdi/who
> >
> > (plus potentially another one or two who may be voted on right now) have
> > binding votes.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is also similar in other places like the Spec Committee, where we
> > occasionally record one or the other subscriber to the mailing list but
> > those are not binding votes for a spec release or update vote.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Matej Novotny
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2021 10:36
> > An: cdi developer discussions
> > Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
