My understanding is that 0’s are
discarded before calculation of a majority is this correct?
Steve Millidge wrote:
SM> Given it is
summer and I have been away. I am a little confused by
SM> the ongoing votes
– are these project committer votes or are they
SM> specification
votes i.e. spec committee votes? I am assuming this
SM> is a committer
vote as this is on the project mailing list not on
SM> the spec
committee mailing list.
SM> I have seen
various comments like (binding) and <company> votes so
SM> not sure what
these signify.
SM> I would like
clarification as a -1 on a committer vote usually
SM> signifies veto.
On what criteria does the vote pass?
-1 means "no, I don't
want this". See Scott Marlow's response.
SM> Apologies if I
have missed this when I have been away. I have been
SM> through the
archive but couldn’t see anything obvious defining the
SM> rules of the
ballot.
Scott Marlow wrote:
ScottM> I think the
ScottM>
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-platform-dev/msg04054.html
ScottM> thread
discussed this and clarified that Platform project
ScottM> committers
are expected to vote with one of "responses: +1
ScottM> (yes), -1
(no, or veto), and 0 (abstain)" but all mailing list
ScottM> members are
also welcome to vote even though only comitters
ScottM> votes will be
counted.
Yes, thanks for digging
that up and sharing it, Scott Marlow.
Ivar Grimstad wrote:
IG> We had a similar
discussion around Jakarta EE 9. Here are the
IG> minutes from that
discussion:
IG>
https://jakartaee.github.io/jakartaee-platform/minutes/2019/2019-11-26.html
IG> In the context of
adding specifications, we then decided on the following:
IG> "DECISON:
Decisions will be made with majority votes. Unanimous is not
needed."
Here is my judgement of
the applicable precedent for creating the
Platform Project Release
Plan.
- Every list member is
eligible to vote.
- Only the committers on
the platform project listed at
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.jakartaee-platform/who
have their votes counted.
- From the set of
committers that have voted
- We count the +1s,
0s, and -1s.
- The option with the
highest number of votes wins.
I am unclear on what we
do in the event of a tie. I suggest we add in
the non-binding votes in
the case of a tie. This is a suggestion, not
a requirement. If we add
in the non-binding votes and we still have a
tie, I'm not sure what
to do.
Steve Millidge wrote:
SM> OK as it is a
specification project shouldn't these sort of
SM> decisions be in
the release plan and therefore subject to the EFSP
SM> and EFSP voting
rules.
Ed Burns wrote:
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-platform-dev/msg04054.html
EB> The fact remains:
even if the voting results in a non-zero number
EB> of new specs
suggested for inclusion in EE 11, when the Platform
EB> Project submits
the Plan including those new specs, the parties
EB> that vote on
approving the Plan have the final say.
I agree with Steve that
the Platform Project Release Plan should
represent the consensus
view of the Platform Project, as determined by
the BALLOT process.
Therefore, I requset we revise the plan when the
BALLOT process is
complete and then present it to the Specification
Committee.
Then, as Steve Millidge
observes, the EFSP voting rules apply to
approve or deny the
Release Plan.
| Reply anonymously to
this email:
https://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/contact