Occasionally a "feel" for consensus is not enough. Sometimes we need to have a measurable consensus. For example, when voting in new committers or to approve a release.
Before calling a vote it is important to ensure that the community is given time to discuss the upcoming vote. This will be done by posting an email to the list indicating the intention to call a vote and the options available. By the time a vote is called there should already be consensus in the community. The vote itself is, normally, a formality.
Once it is time to call the vote a mail is posted with a subject starting with "[VOTE]". This enables the community members to ensure they do not miss an important vote thread. It also indicates that this is not consensus building but a formal vote. The initiator is responsible for the vote. That means also to count the votes and present the results. Everyone has 1 vote.
The notation used in voting is:
+1 (means I vote positive) You can say why you vote positive but it's not a must-have.
0 (means vote abstention and nothing else)
-1 (means I vote negative because of the following reason) Yes, you must support your objection and provide an alternative course of action that you are willing and able to implement (where appropriate).
Address: private@
Subject: [VOTE] John Doe should become a regular committer
Text:
"I would like to propose to vote in John Doe as committer. John has showed in
the last months that he has the skills and oversight for improving things (think
about the last UI change of the "Find" dialog)."
+1 (means I vote for John)
0 (means vote abstention)
-1 (means I vote against John because of the following reason:
Voting time frame is finished 72 hours from now until June 30, 12:00 PM UTC.
Text:
+1
I like his work and want him to stay and to go on with his good improvements.
Subject: [VOTE][RESULTS] John Doe should become a regular committer
Text:
Vote started Thu, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM UTC, voting is now closed.
Voting results:
--- Numbers ---
+1: 12
0: 0
-1: 0
--- Details ---
+1 John Low
+1 Marc
+1 David
+1 Robert
+1 Steve
+1 Chris
+1 Stefan
+1 Andrew
+1 Dennis
+1 Karl
+1 Simon
+1 Greg
See for more information on consenus building derived from its original Apache process See for more information on new committers from its original Apache process See for more information on voting derived from its original Apache process