On 09/13/2011 09:02 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 09/13/2011 09:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
A project lead implies that somehow his/her vote is more important than anyone else's, which is not how the ASF works.
The idea is to build a community that strives for consensus so that the need for tie-breaking votes isn't required… If half the community thinks A and the other B, then there is for sure no consensus.
I know many of the Linux projects use the concept of a group elected tie break role. This is different to ASF. Jim brings up a good point and the question is do we want it, or not?
As long as we're preserving autonomy for established projects, I think any model as long as it's consistent for smaller projects would work. Regards, Anthony Liguori
Might be best to remove it, and then if a project wants it they have to get to the mature phase of the project where they update their voting rules if they want to add that role.
thoughts?
Carl.