Turning Discussion into Transparent Decisions
Consensus is the foundation of ASF governance.
Formal votes are just one way of measuring it.
Discussion and shared understanding build trust and transparency.
Community Over Code: decisions belong to the community, not individuals or companies.
Meritocracy: every voice matters; influence is earned through constructive contribution.
Transparency: decisions are made publicly on the project mailing list.
Respect and Inclusiveness: dialogue and differing views strengthen decisions.
Start discussions seeking broad agreement not votes.
Encourage participation and document differing views.
Use a vote when consensus isn’t clear, or when a formal record improves transparency.
Lazy Consensus - default for routine actions
Consensus After Discussion — used when objections arise
Formal Votes - required for binding ASF decisions
The default ASF decision model.
A proposal is posted; if no one objects within 72 hours, it’s approved.
Works well for routine or low-risk actions like website or documentation updates.
Encourages forward progress without bureaucracy.
Example: “I’ll merge this pull request in 72 hours unless anyone objects.”
Used when objections arise.
Discuss until all significant concerns are addressed.
Aim for rough consensus, broad agreement, even if not everyone fully agrees.
Summarize the final outcome publicly.
Used when ASF policy or legal requirements require a clear decision.
Common examples:
Code releases
Adding committers or PPMC members
Podling graduation proposals
Held on the correct list:
dev@ for community matters
private@ for personnel matters
Vote options: +1 approve, 0 abstain, -1 disapprove (with explanation)
A vote can be withdrawn and restarted if significant issues are found during discussion.
Two-stage process:
1. PPMC vote on dev@ to confirm podling consensus.
2. IPMC vote on general@ for ASF-level approval.
IPMC votes are binding; at least three +1s required.
Mentors ensure both votes are clearly linked and summarized.
| Decision | Who Votes | Binding | Mailing List |
|---|---|---|---|
Routine actions | Anyone | No | dev@ |
Add committers | PPMC | PPMC | private@ |
Add PPMC members | PPMC | PPMC | private@ |
Releases | IPMC | dev@ → general@ | |
Graduation | IPMC | general@ |
Start with discussion, not a vote.
Summarize the decision clearly afterward.
Encourage participation from new contributors.
Welcome different perspectives.
Treat -1 votes as opportunities to improve.
Avoid a “vote-first” culture.
Watch for dominance by one company or mentor.
Assume good faith.
Post a clear closing summary:
Separate binding and non-binding votes.
Include the outcome (e.g., “Passed with 3 binding +1s, no objections”).
Link to the original discussion thread.
Only votes on ASF-managed mailing lists are valid.
Use [DISCUSS], [VOTE], and [RESULT] tags for clarity in archives.
ASF decisions are based on consensus, not simple majority.
The goal is broad agreement and resolved objections.
Votes confirm consensus, they don’t replace discussion.
Minimum of 72 hours for most votes.
Longer for complex or contentious topics.
Ensures global participation across time zones.
Ensure decisions are made publicly and transparently.
Guide podlings on when formal votes are required.
Help communities avoid private decision-making.
Model respectful, inclusive discussion.
Step back as the community learns to self-govern.
If consensus breaks down or process is unclear, mentors can ask for IPMC guidance on general@.
The IPMC provides advice and oversight, not control.
The goal is to help podlings learn and apply ASF practices confidently.
| Pattern | Problem | Better Practice |
|---|---|---|
Private chat decisions | Excludes community | Move all decisions to |
Corporate block votes | Undermines meritocracy | Encourage individual voices |
Silence = agreement | Masks confusion/apathy | Ask for feedback explicitly |
Vote before discussion | Misses perspectives | Start with open dialogue |
Ignoring −1 votes | Breaks trust | Discuss and resolve before proceeding |
Effective consensus building demonstrates community maturity.
Graduation indicators include:
Open, respectful discussions.
Participation from multiple organizations.
PPMC independently handling committer and PPMC additions.
Mailing-list record showing inclusive dialogue.
Encourage discussion before votes.
Ensure decisions are visible and well-documented.
Confirm both PPMC and IPMC release votes occur and are linked.
Use [DISCUSS], [VOTE], and [RESULT] tags for clarity.
Model patience and inclusion in every decision.
Step back as the podling grows toward independence.
Consensus is conversation first, voting second.
Healthy communities:
Discuss openly
Document clearly
Include all voices
Build trust through transparency