Open Stack

Agreed. Anytime you need someone to forcibly "break a tie", you've
created a precedent than driving consensus really isn't needed since
the chair will just decide stuff anyway.

Believe it or not, when a community *really* feels totally empowered,
they understand that it's in everyone's interest to have collaboration
and consensus.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Christopher B Ferris
<chrisfer at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> While I fully agree with your description of the goals and the sad state of
> affairs where we have dueling corporate interests that have split the
> community, if the issues really are just about two equally good ideas, then
> you don't need a chair making the decision, what you need then is an
> effective chair who understands how to tease consensus out of a group, say
> by asking thinks like "who cannot live with option X", etc
>
> My $0.02 USD
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Kurt.Garloff at telekom.de wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> no reasonable committee of any kind should be happy to pass votes with 50%
>> plus a tie-breaking  double-count ...
>> I have been working in OSS projects for most of my life and reaching
>> consensus or near-consensus was the norm, not the exception in any project
>> that I participated in.
>>
>> That should be the goal for any decision-body as well, and if we end up
>> being in a situation where we often have near 50% decisions, we're in
>> serious trouble. I would dare to say that this would rather be an indication
>> that most of our discussions are driven by conflicting corporate interests
>> rather than enthusiasts who try to work out the best solution to a problem.
>> We're in deep trouble if this happens and the fact we may have tie-breaking
>> rules that we don't like is one of our smallest problems then ...
>>
>> That said, there might be situations where we have two options and one is
>> as good as the other ... if for some reason people can't agree, it is
>> sometimes the worst option to not take a decision, so having some
>> tie-breaking capability then is useful. It should be used in exceptional
>> cases only -- if we are afraid that it might be abused, we might want to
>> restrict it. Maybe create a rule that the tie-breaking double vote can't be
>> used when a topic is brought up for decision first -- only when we could not
>> come to a decision and need to reconvene a second time to discuss and take a
>> decision on the same topic, then it may be used.
>>
>> Just my 0.02EUR.
>>
>> Best,
>> --
>> Kurt
>>
>> Kurt Garloff | VP Engineering DBU Cloud Services | Products & Innovation |
>> Deutsche Telekom AG | http://www.telekom.com/
>> Landgrabenweg 151 | 53227 Bonn | Germany
>> B2/5.15 | +49 151 6130 9858 (mobile), +49 228 936 17013 (office), +49 228
>> 936 17009 (fax) | kurt.garloff at telekom.de
>> (T-Online-Allee 1 |64295 Darmstadt | Germany | 4B.K26 | +49 6151 680 6312)
>>
>> Life is for sharing.
>>
>> Deutsche Telekom AG | Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner
>> (Chairman) | Board of Management: Ren? Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard
>> Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H?ttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia
>> Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick
>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 | Registered office: Bonn |
>> WEEE reg. no. DE50478376
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug at us.ibm.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:48 PM
>> > To: Lloyd Dewolf
>> > Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] board chair == two votes
>> > -was- Re: Technical Committee: new draft
>> >
>> > Yes, its the tie situation that I'm preferring to.  To me
>> > either the vote reaches the threshold or it doesn't.  50%
>> > isn't the threshold so it fails.
>> >
>> > There's also the interesting case where multiple people from
>> > the same company get to vote in the same ballot - I think its
>> > because the same company can have  both platinum (or gold -
>> > can't remember which right now) as well as individual
>> > members, and that's another sore point for me but I'll leave
>> > that for another day.  :-)  But its those kinds of rules that
>> > make things seem a lot more complicated than they need to be.
>> >  Once company, one vote is much easier.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > -Doug
>> > ________________________________________________________
>> > STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
>> > (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug at us.ibm.com The more
>> > I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Lloyd Dewolf <lloydostack at gmail.com>
>> > 07/05/2012 04:35 PM
>> >
>> > To
>> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
>> > cc
>> > foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject
>> > board chair == two votes -was- Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Technical
>> > Committee: new draft
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Doug Davis <dug at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > For example, I mentioned that I didn't like PTLs having
>> > more power than
>> > > anyone else, I think the same goes for the board chair.  In
>> > the current
>> > > foundation by-laws it talks about the chair having more
>> > than one vote.
>> >
>> > Would you point to a specific section(s) where this comes into play?
>> >
>> > My understanding is the two vote only comes up in a scenario that
>> > requires a tie break, often in a scenario when the chair won't have
>> > voted in creating the tie, and the fact that it is two votes is just
>> > how Delaware works.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > @lloyddewolf
>> > http://www.pistoncloud.com/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Foundation mailing list
>> > Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>