oVirt comminuty voting

[Jim Jagielski]

That's most probably a good path.

If you start off with the expectation that there will be
the need for tie-breaking votes, well… they are bound to
happen. But if the expectation is that there will be no need
for them, and therefore no position that is "empowered" to
break them, then the communities will be "forced" to
collaborate and compromise.

On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:02 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?
> 
> 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.

--
Jim Jagielski | jimjag at redhat.com | 443-324-8390 (cell)