[VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
64 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Ted Dunning
Ralph,

I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.

But where you say

As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.


I disagree.  The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.




On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)."  My point
> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> > Ralph,
> >
> > Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> > voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
> >
> > As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> > discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
> git).
> > Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
> >
> > In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> > votes.
> >
> > That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
> problem.
> > The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> > make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> > responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> > premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> > has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> > problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
> >
> > One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
> the
> > subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
> >
> > See
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > This is the point that Phil first commented.
> >
> > On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> > subject a number of times:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
> >
> > In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
> [hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
> General
> >> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
> >>
> >> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
> >> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
> >> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
> things
> >> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
> >> agree).
> >>
> >> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
> HTTP
> >> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
> >> other set of bylaws."
> >> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
> there
> >> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means
> everyone
> >> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
> be
> >> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
> >>
> >> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
> says
> >> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
> >> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on
> the
> >> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
> or a
> >> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
> git
> >> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
> >> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Phil,
> >>>
> >>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
> >>>
> >>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> >>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> >>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> >>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
> >>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
> >>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
> >>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
> >>>
> >>> I got this information from:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >>>
> >>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
> >>> (consensus != unanimous).
> >>>
> >>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
> >>> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
> >>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
> >>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
> >>> your concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
> >>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1s
> >>>>> James Carman
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Matt Benson
> >>>>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>>>> Oliver Heger
> >>>>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1s
> >>>>> Mark Thomas
> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>>>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>>>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0.5
> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0
> >>>>> Ralph Goers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -0
> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
> >>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
> >>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
> >>>>> everyone's vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> James
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
> >>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
> >>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
> all
> >>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
> >> too
> >>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
> >> releasing a
> >>>>>>>>> component!!
> >>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
> big
> >>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
> >>>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we
> >> have
> >>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
> >> problem is
> >>>>>>> getting there.
> >>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
> >> ready
> >>>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
> >> the
> >>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the
> fun
> >>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
> >>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
> >>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
> >> back.
> >>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about
> BU.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Benedikt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oliver
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.
>  I
> >>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
> >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> >>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> >>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> >>>>>> http://github.com/britter
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
On 10/13/13 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
> voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>
> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to git).
>  Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>
> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
> votes.
>
> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger problem.
>  The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
> make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
> premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>
> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote, the
> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>
> See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>
> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
> subject a number of times:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>
> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.

Get real, Ted.  The thread had diverged into general discussion.  I
did not see it as a serious VOTE at that point and I stand by my
statements that any assertion that it established "consensus" is
incorrect.  

Phil

>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator General
>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efrom which I quote below:
>>
>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing things
>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>> agree).
>>
>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the HTTP
>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>> other set of bylaws."
>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means everyone
>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must be
>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>
>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically says
>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on the
>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus or a
>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to git
>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>
>>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
>>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
>>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
>>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>>>
>>> I got this information from:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>
>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>
>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
>>> your concerns.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage all
>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>> too
>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the big
>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>> have
>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
>> problem is
>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>> ready
>>>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
>> the
>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the fun
>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>> back.
>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about BU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.  I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM... - is not a consensus

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
OK - sorry for misunderstanding you. It appears we are in agreement and my use of "majority" in that sentence is incorrect.  The wording I quoted from the httpd page is much clearer (at least 3 +1 votes and no vetoes).

Ralph


On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:20 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> I completely agree that this vote wasn't consensus.
>
> But where you say
>
> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and there
>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.
>
>
> I disagree.  The only quorum typically required for ASF consensus votes is
> 3 +1's, not a majority of possible voters.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Please re-read my message. James stated " We definitely have enough people
>> voting to be considered a consensus (consensus != unanimous)."  My point
>> was to quote what Roy posted a few days ago that said while consensus isn't
>> unanimous it also isn't the simple majority vote either, so to state that
>> consensus was reached is incorrect because there were several -1 votes.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph,
>>>
>>> Majority votes at ASF almost never require a majority of all possible
>>> voters.  Almost always the (plus > 3 && plus > minus) convention is used.
>>>
>>> As you can find in innumerable threads as well, consensus among the
>>> discussion participants is preferable for big changes (like moving to
>> git).
>>> Consensus does not depend on the potential number of voters.
>>>
>>> In fact, virtually nothing depends on a quorum at ASF other than member
>>> votes.
>>>
>>> That said, this vote may well a small victory that causes a larger
>> problem.
>>> The hard question here is whether it is better to pause here in order to
>>> make faster progress.  Phil's point is a bit out of order ... if he had
>>> responded to the request for votes with his statement that the vote was
>>> premature, it would have been much better.  To wait until after the vote
>>> has been lost and then claim that more discussion is needed is a bit of a
>>> problem, at least from the point of view of appearance.
>>>
>>> One very confusing procedural point is that half-way through the vote,
>> the
>>> subject line reverted to [DISCUSS] rather than [VOTE].
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CCALznzY4v1bPGrMotJkmSN8wp9hSjs8mMjSj89wfzBEgimhtxrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> This is the point that Phil first commented.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Phil also commented on the thread with the [VOTE]
>>> subject a number of times:
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3CA9D202A4-6E76-42D8-9606-1E40D69162C7@...%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C08688247-B00E-44C7-8B21-F107921B49D1@...%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C5256FF12.3070806@...%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>>>
>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201310.mbox/%3C110B24A9-DD67-436D-9E2D-E29521693809@...%3E
>>>
>>> In none of these did he say that the vote was premature.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers <
>> [hidden email]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, if you read Roy's post from a few days ago on Incubator
>> General
>>>> you will find that consensus is != to majority or unanimity.  See
>>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/ajax/%3CC2FDB244-459D-4EC4-954A-7A7F6C4B179B%40gbiv.com%3Efromwhich I quote below:
>>>>
>>>> "Consensus is that everyone who shares an opinion agrees to a common
>>>> resolution (even if they do not personally prefer that resolution).
>>>> Unanimity means that everyone present agrees (for a PMC discussing
>> things
>>>> in email, that means everyone listed on the roster must affirmatively
>>>> agree).
>>>>
>>>> Hence, consensus decisions can be vetoed, as is clearly stated in the
>> HTTP
>>>> Server Project Guidelines, unless the project has decided to adopt some
>>>> other set of bylaws."
>>>> As I understand this, consensus means that a majority must vote and
>> there
>>>> must not be any -1 votes among those who voted.  Unanimity means
>> everyone
>>>> must vote and no one must vote -1. Of course, majority means there must
>> be
>>>> at least three +1 votes and more +1s than -1s.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html specifically
>> says
>>>> "An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3
>>>> binding +1 votes and no vetoes.",  However, I don't see any guidance on
>> the
>>>> httpd page that would indicate whether this vote requires a consensus
>> or a
>>>> majority. One could certainly argue that deciding to move from svn to
>> git
>>>> is "procedural" and thus only requires a majority, however I tend to
>>>> believe that consensus would be what would be preferred for this vote.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> While I appreciate your concerns, the vote is a valid vote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
>>>>> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
>>>>> than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
>>>>> regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If the number of
>>>>> votes seems too small to be representative of a community consensus,
>>>>> the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of
>>>>> lazy consensus for a modifying factor.)"
>>>>>
>>>>> I got this information from:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely have enough people voting to be considered a consensus
>>>>> (consensus != unanimous).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we will not move forward with the Git move if we don't have
>>>>> any luck with our test component (different thread).  If we see the
>>>>> test component isn't working out well, then we can just decide (or
>>>>> vote again) to scrap the idea and move on.  Hopefully that addresses
>>>>> your concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1s
>>>>>>> James Carman
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1s
>>>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0
>>>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>>>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let me know if I have missed anyone's vote.  Having two vote
>>>>>>> threads (my fault) caused a bit of confusion, but I think I got
>>>>>>> everyone's vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 2013/10/11 Oliver Heger <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 11.10.2013 02:10, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Olivier Lamy <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even I like git and use it daily, I will vote +0,5.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why other apache projects need to have their own commons-csv
>>>>>>>>>>> repackaged release? why tomcat need to use a svn:external on dbcp
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of a released version? why servicemix need to repackage
>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> commons jar to have proper osgi bundles?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I simply believe moving to git won't fix those problems about the
>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>> complicated release process which scare folks here to try
>>>> releasing a
>>>>>>>>>>> component!!
>>>>>>>>>>> So no release happen at the end....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the release process is certainly a problem; but the
>> big
>>>>>>>>> problem IMO is just too many components for too few really active
>>>>>>>>> committers.  Once we actually have something ready to release, we
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> generally been able to fumble our way through the process.  The
>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>> getting there.
>>>>>>>>>> I think the best thing we can do is focus on getting some things
>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>> for release.  I will help on pool, DBCP, math.  I won't rob Mark of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> oppty to rm pool2, but will help ;). All are welcome to join the
>> fun
>>>>>>>>> cleaning up the docs and other loose ends on that and then dbcp2.
>>>>>>>>>> Who wants to step up to drive some other things  to release?
>>>>>>>>> I plan to prepare a release of BeanUtils soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good to hear. There is a lot to do. I started generification a while
>>>> back.
>>>>>>>> If you like you can join #asfcommons and we can have a talk about
>> BU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 01:50, James Carman <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We have had some great discussions about moving our SCM to Git.
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think it's time to put it to a vote.  So, here we go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - yes, move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 - no, do not move to Git
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be left open for 72 hours.  Go!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
>>>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>>>>>>>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>>>>>>>> http://github.com/britter
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:

> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>
>>> +1s
>>> James Carman
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Matt Benson
>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>> Oliver Heger
>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>
>>> -1s
>>> Mark Thomas
>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>
>>> +0
>>> Ralph Goers
>>>
>>> -0
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>
>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>> that.
>>
>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>
> I agree entirely with Phil.
>
> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.

I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.

I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed through".

I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.

I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.

Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
forced to switch to git.

Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Jörg Schaible-3
In reply to this post by James Carman
Hi James,

James Carman wrote:

> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
> (counting votes on both lists):
>
> +1s
> James Carman
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Matt Benson
> Benedikt Ritter
> Bruno Kinoshita
> Gary Gregory
> Luc Maisonobe
> Oliver Heger
> Christian Grobmeier
> Torsten Curdt
>
> -1s
> Mark Thomas
> Thomas Vandahl
> Damjan Jovanovic
> Gilles Sadowski
> Jorg Schaible

actually I am surprised now, that you counted the other thread as well. My
objections were of technical nature, but have been cleared. I did not vote
again on purpose.

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Christian Grobmeier
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:

> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see
>>>> it
>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>
>>>> +1s
>>>> James Carman
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> Matt Benson
>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>
>>>> -1s
>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>
>>>> +0.5
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>
>>>> +0
>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>
>>>> -0
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  
>>>> We
>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page
>>>> for
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>
>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>
> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>
> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
> through".

I disagree.

We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
button on friday
and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
decision and
it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
single day.

Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
think we should
first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.

It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
single component.
If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
discuss what needs to be improved.

We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.

I really can't see anything bulldozed here.

> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where
> there
> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>
> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that
> component
> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to
> deal
> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.

I have not understood it otherwise.
Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?

> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should
> be
> forced to switch to git.

I had the idea too and support it.

Cheers
Christian

>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Phil Steitz
On 10/16/13 1:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I
>>>>> see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for
>>>>> SCM.  We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki
>>>>> page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but
>>>> if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and
>>>> that is
>>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the
>>>> VOTE
>>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>>
>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>>
>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this
>> change.
>>
>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being
>> "bulldozed through".
>
> I disagree.
>
> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a
> red button on friday
> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a
> general decision and
> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in
> a single day.
>
> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to
> move? I think we should
> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>
> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move
> a single component.
> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger
> loss or discuss what needs to be improved.
>
> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We
> just wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>
> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>
>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where
>> there
>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>>
>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component
>> volunteers to
>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that
>> component
>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch
>> starts. If
>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have
>> to deal
>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>
> I have not understood it otherwise.
> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>
>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a
>> component
>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component
>> should be
>> forced to switch to git.
>
> I had the idea too and support it.

Great.  Then the three of us at least all agree.  What I was
protesting was the conclusion that we had consensus to move all
components.

Phil

>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Christian Grobmeier
On 16 Oct 2013, at 22:46, Phil Steitz wrote:

> On 10/16/13 1:34 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a
>>> component
>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component
>>> should be
>>> forced to switch to git.
>>
>> I had the idea too and support it.
>
> Great.  Then the three of us at least all agree.  What I was
> protesting was the conclusion that we had consensus to move all
> components.

Not sure if i was perfectly clear:

I voted to move all components sooner or later to git. Not all at once.
But to start with one, try things out, learn and finally moving on with
the others one by one.

BUT if some maintainers of a component really have a problem with git,
I am of course accepting they are using svn while others can use git.

My impression is that most people who are working as team on a single
component
have a similar vision on the scm.

Usually I would now open a vote to see if we all agree.


>
> Phil
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> @grobmeier
>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by Christian Grobmeier
On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>
>>>>> +1s
>>>>> James Carman
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>
>>>>> -1s
>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>
>>>>> +0.5
>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>
>>>>> +0
>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>>
>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>>
>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>>
>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
>> through".
>
> I disagree.
>
> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
> button on friday
> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
> decision and
> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
> single day.
>
> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
> think we should
> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.

What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus.

The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The
vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
Commons from svn to git.

The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
for SCM".

> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
> single component.
> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
> discuss what needs to be improved.

That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.

> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>
> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.

The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
such a move.

>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>>
>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>
> I have not understood it otherwise.
> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?

The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving
this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything
other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.

>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
>> forced to switch to git.
>
> I had the idea too and support it.

At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being
voted on.

I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn
to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give
me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that
balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

garydgregory
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> > On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
> >>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
> >>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1s
> >>>>> James Carman
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Matt Benson
> >>>>> Benedikt Ritter
> >>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
> >>>>> Gary Gregory
> >>>>> Luc Maisonobe
> >>>>> Oliver Heger
> >>>>> Christian Grobmeier
> >>>>> Torsten Curdt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1s
> >>>>> Mark Thomas
> >>>>> Thomas Vandahl
> >>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
> >>>>> Gilles Sadowski
> >>>>> Jorg Schaible
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0.5
> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +0
> >>>>> Ralph Goers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -0
> >>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
> >>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
> >>>>> that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
> >>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
> >>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
> >>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
> >>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
> >>>
> >>> I agree entirely with Phil.
> >>>
> >>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
> >>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
> >>
> >> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
> >>
> >> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
> >> through".
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
> > button on friday
> > and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
> > decision and
> > it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
> > single day.
> >
> > Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
> > think we should
> > first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>
> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus.
>
> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The
> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
> Commons from svn to git.
>
> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
> for SCM".
>


Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let
whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes?

Gary


>
> > It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
> > single component.
> > If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
> > discuss what needs to be improved.
>
> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.
>
> > We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
> > wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
> >
> > I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>
> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
> such a move.
>
> >> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
> >> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
> >>
> >> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> >> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
> >> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> >> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
> >> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
> >
> > I have not understood it otherwise.
> > Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>
> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving
> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything
> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.
>
> >> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> >> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
> >> forced to switch to git.
> >
> > I had the idea too and support it.
>
> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being
> voted on.
>
> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn
> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give
> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that
> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

James Ring
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>
>>>> +1s
>>>> James Carman
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> Matt Benson
>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>
>>>> -1s
>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>
>>>> +0.5
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>
>>>> +0
>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>
>>>> -0
>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>
>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>
>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>
> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>
> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed through".
>
> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>
> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>
> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
> forced to switch to git.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by garydgregory
On 10/16/13 2:39 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 9:13, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/10/2013 23:59, sebb wrote:
>>>>> On 13 October 2013 20:47, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/13 8:09 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, it has been 72 hours, so let's tally up the votes.  As I see it
>>>>>>> (counting votes on both lists):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1s
>>>>>>> James Carman
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> Matt Benson
>>>>>>> Benedikt Ritter
>>>>>>> Bruno Kinoshita
>>>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>>>> Luc Maisonobe
>>>>>>> Oliver Heger
>>>>>>> Christian Grobmeier
>>>>>>> Torsten Curdt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1s
>>>>>>> Mark Thomas
>>>>>>> Thomas Vandahl
>>>>>>> Damjan Jovanovic
>>>>>>> Gilles Sadowski
>>>>>>> Jorg Schaible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +0
>>>>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote passes, so Apache Commons will be moving to Git for SCM.  We
>>>>>>> should begin working on a plan.  I propose we set up a wiki page for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>> I protest.  It is fine for some components to experiment, but if we
>>>>>> are going to force all to move, we really need consensus and that is
>>>>>> clearly not the case here.  I did not vote as I frankly saw the VOTE
>>>>>> as premature.  We should use VOTEs as a last resort, not a first
>>>>>> step or way to avoid getting to consensus on non-release issues.
>>>>> I agree entirely with Phil.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have voted -1 earlier, but was off-line for a few days.
>>>>> This is a huge change, and should not be bulldozed through.
>>>> I too challenge the assertion that there is consensus for this change.
>>>>
>>>> I also agree with Sebb's characterisation of this being "bulldozed
>>>> through".
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> We have discussed it, we had a vote. We have not voted to push a red
>>> button on friday
>>> and to work with git alone on saturday. This was a vote for a general
>>> decision and
>>> it is clear (or should be) that changes like that are not made in a
>>> single day.
>>>
>>> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to move? I
>>> think we should
>>> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of consensus.
>>
>> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
>> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move. The
>> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
>> Commons from svn to git.
>>
>> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
>> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
>> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
>> for SCM".
>>
>
> Why don't we side-step the consensus vs. majority and so on issue, and let
> whomever wants git propose to move one component and see how that goes?

+1
Phil

>
> Gary
>
>
>>> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
>>> single component.
>>> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss or
>>> discuss what needs to be improved.
>> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
>> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.
>>
>>> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
>>> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>>>
>>> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
>> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
>> such a move.
>>
>>>> I have no objection to a switch to git for those components where there
>>>> is consensus to do so amongst the active developers.
>>>>
>>>> I continue to strongly recommend that a single component volunteers to
>>>> be the svn->git guinea pig for Commons and that we allow that component
>>>> to work out any issues that crop up before any mass switch starts. If
>>>> there are no issues, great. If there are issues, better to have to deal
>>>> with one set of them rather than 40+ sets.
>>> I have not understood it otherwise.
>>> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
>> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was driving
>> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least) anything
>> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.
>>
>>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a component
>>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component should be
>>>> forced to switch to git.
>>> I had the idea too and support it.
>> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
>> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was being
>> voted on.
>>
>> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the svn
>> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
>> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
>> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors give
>> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure that
>> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by James Ring

On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:

> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>

Apache voting rules are documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.

In short, a consensus vote requires at least 3 +1 votes and no -1 votes from PMC members.  Quorum was not an issue (and rarely is with a PMC as large as Commons').

Ralph
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

sebb-2-2
On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>
>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>
>
> Apache voting rules are documented at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.

It's defined in the glossary:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

James Ring
So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
settled right?
On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> >
> >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
> >>
> >
> > Apache voting rules are documented at
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't
> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>
> It's defined in the glossary:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Henri Yandell
There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of
the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is
to do with code, it's not code itself.

I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.

The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference for
git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.

I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to putting
a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
(acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we move
a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
from trunks-proper?

Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However this
seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.

Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. We're
not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
along the way :)

---

An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
in the choice of system being interacted with.

Hen


On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:

> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
> settled right?
> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Apache voting rules are documented at
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't
> > define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
> >
> > It's defined in the glossary:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Dave Brosius-2
Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
this thread to be 'argued' by
those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled
the test project request in INFRA, and
so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
have a beer, and enjoy.

On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator of
> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this is
> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>
> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>
> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference for
> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>
> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to putting
> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we move
> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
> from trunks-proper?
>
> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However this
> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>
> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question. We're
> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
> along the way :)
>
> ---
>
> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>
>> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
>> settled right?
>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>>>>
>>>> Apache voting rules are documented at
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. However, that page doesn't
>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>
>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Henri Yandell
Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I
have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though.

Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try
Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issues
at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a
patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to deploy
the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and
restart.

Hen


On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dave Brosius <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
> this thread to be 'argued' by
> those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the
> test project request in INFRA, and
> so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
> have a beer, and enjoy.
>
>
> On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator
>> of
>> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this
>> is
>> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>>
>> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>>
>> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference
>> for
>> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>>
>> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
>> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
>> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
>> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
>> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
>> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
>> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
>> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
>> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to
>> putting
>> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
>> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
>> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
>> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we
>> move
>> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
>> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
>> from trunks-proper?
>>
>> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
>> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
>> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However
>> this
>> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
>> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
>> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>>
>> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question.
>> We're
>> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
>> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
>> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
>> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
>> along the way :)
>>
>> ---
>>
>> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
>> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
>> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
>> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
>> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
>> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
>> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>>
>>  So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
>>> settled right?
>>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Apache voting rules are documented at
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/voting.html<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>.
>>>> However, that page doesn't
>>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>>
>>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#**ConsensusApproval<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<[hidden email]>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Benedikt Ritter-3
Hi Hen,

Send from my mobile device

> Am 17.10.2013 um 08:24 schrieb Henri Yandell <[hidden email]>:
>
> Wooo! I won on my first post, and by being on the fence. Be afraid when I
> have a strong opinion, be wery, wery afraid :) Not allowed to drink though.
>
> Hacking along tonight, I'm reminded of one reason why I would like to try
> Git in Commons. It's the only place I tend to be working on parallel issues
> at the same time and I would like to stash (if that's the right verb) a
> patch that's part ready but waiting on feedback online. I started to deploy
> the site with reports based on the uncommitted code and had to abort and
> restart.

With git you can stash changes AND work in local branches (or push local branches with history to your remote). Stashing is btw supported by some IDE without SCM at all (I think idea can do it). Nevertheless I agree with you, that this is a big + for git.

I'd say we push out lang 3.2 and use lang as a test project, if all of lang's developers can agree on this.

Benedikt

>
> Hen
>
>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Dave Brosius <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Those who wanted to move to Git have given up several days ago, leaving
>> this thread to be 'argued' by
>> those who successfully squashed the action. James has already canceled the
>> test project request in INFRA, and
>> so it seems pointless for this thread to continue. You won, go off and
>> have a beer, and enjoy.
>>
>>
>>> On 10/16/2013 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no veto notion here - if we're abiding by the lowest denominator
>>> of
>>> the base Apache voting rules, vetoes are only for code votes. While this
>>> is
>>> to do with code, it's not code itself.
>>>
>>> I see it settled in that an understanding is reached.
>>>
>>> The majority of those voting have indicated that they have a preference
>>> for
>>> git over svn and would like Commons to move in that direction.
>>>
>>> I'm definitely confused by the proposal. Being selfish - what's this going
>>> to change? The discussion implied code review would be used (are we moving
>>> to RTC?). It implied that there would be issues in checking all of Commons
>>> out (which has always been very important to me, though I'll admit not
>>> right now as I've not been supporting cross-Commons features the way
>>> others, noticeably Sebb, are). If we break the ability for someone to fix
>>> issues across all components, we increase the likelihood that central
>>> changes won't be pushed out. Will GitHub pull requests get better? Because
>>> they're currently a mess. Will we lose existing contributors due to
>>> putting
>>> a hurdle in their way? Will the development workflow change? While I use
>>> git at the moment, I'm aware I use it in an svn way because I'm always
>>> hitting pains where git's support for my workflow involves doing odd items
>>> (acknowledging the issue is me for not developing in a git way). If we
>>> move
>>> a component to git, will I still be able to commit to it via some form of
>>> svn2git bridge, or will each partial migration mean a component vanishing
>>> from trunks-proper?
>>>
>>> Browsing the git discuss thread, it was surprisingly light on details. To
>>> be excited by this and not feel frustrated, I suspect I'll need more
>>> support (explanations before hand, answers to dumb questions). However
>>> this
>>> seems much like the moves to maven1 and maven2. A difference to the
>>> maven1/maven2 moves is that they were done with overlap. Components were
>>> not unusual to have Ant, Maven 1 and Maven 2 build systems.
>>>
>>> Summary: I won't add my vote because I don't understand the question.
>>> We're
>>> not voting on moving to Git, we're voting on something bigger and only
>>> those voting +1 know what that is :) I'm not against it, but I know there
>>> will be pain, someone else is going to do all the work [hey, I served my
>>> time on jira and svn] and I'll slowly catch up and hopefully not get lost
>>> along the way :)
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> An aside: I'm not convinced btw that another thread entitled "[VOTE] Stay
>>> on Subversion" wouldn't also be passed. To conjecture culturally, those
>>> fastest to respond are most likely to want to move to Git, while those
>>> slower are most likely to want to stay on Subversion. Mobilization of the
>>> SVN vote would probably exceed the Git vote, however I believe there is a
>>> level of those interacting more often with the scm having a greater voice
>>> in the choice of system being interacted with.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, James Ring wrote:
>>>
>>> So did any committer want to exercise a veto? Otherwise the matter is
>>>> settled right?
>>>> On Oct 16, 2013 6:38 PM, "sebb" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17 October 2013 02:10, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, James Ring wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do Apache by-laws require a quorum? Was there a quorum for this vote?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apache voting rules are documented at
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/voting.html<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>.
>>>>> However, that page doesn't
>>>>> define "consensus" which is where some of the disagreement came from.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's defined in the glossary:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#**ConsensusApproval<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<[hidden email]>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Apache Commons to Git for SCM...

Christian Grobmeier
In reply to this post by Mark Thomas
On 16 Oct 2013, at 23:14, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 16/10/2013 21:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> Now what are you folks expecting? A full-fleshed out plan how to
>> move? I
>> think we should
>> first decide IF we move and that was was happening here.
>
> What I was expecting was decisions to be made on the basis of
> consensus.

Which is sometimes pretty difficult with a PMC of that size.

> The vote was not for a trial with a single component nor was it for a
> gradual move to git as components decided that they wanted to move.
> The
> vote was for a very black and white proposal to move the entire of
> Commons from svn to git.

Sure, thats the goal: "Move Commons to GIT". But it doesn't imply the
actual steps. It didn't say anything of "switch all components" at once.


> The vote did not get consensus - far from it with around a third of
> those voting against the proposal. Therefore my objection was to the
> statement in the vote result that "Apache Commons will be moving to
> Git
> for SCM".

Sure, it will not do that. Commons will most likely never move to GIT
and stay where it is.

>
>> It was also pretty clear to start with a small step first and move a
>> single component.
>> If that would went wrong we could either go back without bigger loss
>> or
>> discuss what needs to be improved.
>
> That is not what was stated in the vote. If it had been, I would have
> voted +1. I indicated as much when I voted.

Come on. Nobody said we move all components at once. In some thread it
was also
said its around little steps first. James requested a single
experimental
git repository.

That aside: even when we would have successfully voted on GIT, do you
really
believe you have zero influence on how it is done? Do you think James
would have requested the move of all Commons components at once without
telling us?

This is not how our community worked or works.

>> We are not using experimental bleeding edge technology here. We just
>> wanted to decide if we will follow the git path or not.
>>
>> I really can't see anything bulldozed here.
>
> The bulldozing was the statement "Apache Commons will be moving to Git
> for SCM" when a significant proportion of the committers voted against
> such a move.

Aha ok.

So in my ears it didn't sound so bulldozing. He tallied up the votes and
draw a conclusion.
Bulldozing is to request all git repositories at once at Infra. Luckily
that kind
of bulldozing can be stopped.

>> I have not understood it otherwise.
>> Why did you start to believe we move all components at once?
>
> The text of the vote, the text of the vote result and the context in
> which the vote was conducted. At no point did the James (who was
> driving
> this issue) make any statement that suggested (to me at least)
> anything
> other than a wholesale migration from svn to git.

I don't see it like that.

For me it was a general question without implying any real plan.
And again: if there would have been such a misunderstanding we could
have
fixed that after we decided if we move to GIT or not.


>>> Further, if the consensus amongst the active developers on a
>>> component
>>> is that they wish to stick to svn, I see no why that component
>>> should be
>>> forced to switch to git.
>>
>> I had the idea too and support it.
>
> At this point I am unclear what support there is for what since folks
> appear to have very different interpretations of exactly what was
> being
> voted on.
>
> I think that there is consensus for a single component to trial the
> svn
> to git migration to see how it goes. That approach certainly has my
> support although I won't be volunteering any of the components I'm
> working on - while I can see the advantages of git, the git mirrors
> give
> me most of the advantages with none of the migration pain. I'm sure
> that
> balance will change over time but personally I'm not there yet.

Ok.

Cheers
Christian

>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

1234