Voting in meritocratic governance projects
by Gabriel Hanganu on 14 February 2012 , last updated
As described in our document discussing the meritocratic governance model, meritocratic open source projects make decisions through consultation with all members of the community. In order to make this process as efficient as possible they often adopt a policy of lazy consensus, which allows most of the decisions to be made without resorting to a formal vote. However not all decisions can be made through lazy consensus: issues such as those affecting the strategic direction or legal standing of the project must gain explicit approval in the form of a vote. This document describes in more detail how voting is conducted in such situations in projects following the practice established within the Apache Software Foundation.
If a formal vote on a proposal is called (signaled simply by sending a email with ‘[VOTE]’ in the subject line), all participants on the project contributors’ list may express an opinion and vote. They do this by sending an email in reply to the original ‘[VOTE]’ email, with the following vote and information:
- +1 ‘yes’, ‘agree’: also willing to help bring about the proposed action
- +0 ‘yes’, ‘agree’: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed action
- -0 ‘no’, ‘disagree’: but will not oppose the action’s going forward
- -1 ‘no’, ‘disagree’: opposes the action’s going forward and must propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for not addressing the issue)
To abstain from the vote, participants simply do not respond to the email. However, it can be more helpful to cast a ‘+0’ or ‘-0’ than to abstain, since this allows the team to gauge the general feeling of the community if the proposal should be controversial.
Every member of the community, from interested user to the most active developer, has a vote. The project encourages all members to express their opinions in all discussion and all votes.
However, only some members have binding votes for the purposes of decision making; for example in the Apache Software Foundation these are the committers and/or the members of the Project Management Committee.
It is therefore their responsibility to ensure that the opinions of all community members are considered. While not all members may have a binding vote, a well-justified ‘-1’ from a non-committer must be considered by the community, and if appropriate, supported by a binding ‘-1’.
A ‘-1’ can also indicate a veto, depending on the type of vote and who is using it. Someone without a binding vote cannot veto a proposal, so in their case a -1 would simply indicate an objection.
When a [VOTE] receives a ‘-1’, it is the responsibility of the community as a whole to address the objection. Such discussion will continue until the objection is either rescinded, overruled (in the case of a non-binding veto) or the proposal itself is altered in order to achieve consensus (possibly by withdrawing it altogether). In the rare circumstance that consensus cannot be achieved, the PMC will decide the forward course of action.
- Those who don’t agree with the proposal and think they have a better idea should vote -1 and defend their counter-proposal.
- Those who don’t agree but don’t have a better idea should vote -0.
- Those who agree but will not actively assist in implementing the proposal should vote +0.
- Those who agree and will actively assist in implementing the proposal should vote +1.
Types of approval
Different actions require different types of approval, ranging from lazy consensus to a majority decision by the PMC. These are summarised in the table below. The section after the table describes which type of approval should be used in common situations.
|Lazy consensus||An action with lazy consensus is implicitly allowed, unless a binding -1 vote is received. Depending on the type of action, a vote will then be called. Note that even though a binding -1 is required to prevent the action, all community members are encouraged to cast a -1 vote with supporting argument. Committers are expected to evaluate the argument and, if necessary, support it with a binding -1.||N/A|
|Lazy majority||A lazy majority vote requires more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes.||72 hours|
|Consensus approval||Consensus approval requires three binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes.||72 hours|
|Unanimous consensus||All of the binding votes that are cast are to be +1 and there can be no binding vetoes (-1).||120 hours|
|2/3 majority||Some strategic actions require a 2/3 majority of PMC members; in addition, 2/3 of the binding votes cast must be +1. Such actions typically affect the foundation of the project (e.g. adopting a new codebase to replace an existing product).||120 hours|
When is a vote required?
Every effort is made to allow the majority of decisions to be taken through lazy consensus. That is, simply stating one’s intentions is assumed to be enough to proceed, unless an objection is raised. However, some activities require a more formal approval process in order to ensure fully transparent decision making.
The table below describes some of the actions that will require a vote. It also identifies which type of vote should be called.
|Release plan||Defines the timetable and actions for a release. A release plan cannot be vetoed (hence lazy majority).||Lazy majority|
|Product release||When a release of one of the project’s products is ready, a vote is required to accept the release as an official release of the project. A release cannot be vetoed (hence lazy majority).||Lazy majority|
|New committer||A new committer has been proposed.||Consensus approval of the PMC|
|New PMC member||A new PMC member has been proposed.||Consensus approval of the community|
|Committer removal||When removal of commit privileges is sought.||Unanimous consensus of the PMC|
|PMC member removal||When removal of PMC membership is sought.||Unanimous consensus of the community|
- The Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org
- The Apache Software Foundation meritocratic model http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
Related information from OSS Watch: