+1 nb ________________________________ From: Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Yes, this is my understanding as well. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, > but just my 2c. > > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how many > +1's > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > simple > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > > > For example: > > > > - 33 pmc members > > - 16 roll call > > - 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, passes > > - If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with > the > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a vote > should > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from > "simple > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", > but > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing > up. We > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which > might > > further encourage participation. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it > stands. > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. > yesterday; one > >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. > >> > >> @Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> - want to revise the wiki > article > >> and call a new vote? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. > >>> > >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. > For > >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum > of 11 > >>> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 > to pass, > >>> so in that case 8 +1's. > >>> > >>> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple > majority > >>> > (I am) and calling a new vote? > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out > that > >>> there > >>> > are > >>> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an > impediment. I > >>> don't > >>> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules > as > >>> > > formulated, either, for the record. > >>> > > > >>> > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a > problem, just > >>> > wanted > >>> > > to check. > >>> > > > >>> > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as > the > >>> low > >>> > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>> > bened...@apache.org> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out > that > >>> there > >>> > are > >>> > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an > impediment. I > >>> > don't > >>> > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting > rules as > >>> > > > formulated, either, for the record. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a > good > >>> > thing to > >>> > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without > >>> discussing > >>> > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been > >>> responded > >>> > to, > >>> > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed > from > >>> > poorly > >>> > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ > indicative > >>> votes > >>> > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), > and > >>> > avoiding > >>> > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, > rather > >>> > than a > >>> > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the > quorum > >>> is > >>> > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the > >>> community > >>> > > > before a formal vote. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once > this > >>> vote > >>> > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and > proposed > >>> > lowering the > >>> > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - > since > >>> if > >>> > you > >>> > > > have > >>> > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a > >>> > > > super-majority of > >>> > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong > consensus. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call > + a > >>> super > >>> > > > majority > >>> > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is > >>> likely to > >>> > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves > in the > >>> roll > >>> > > > call, > >>> > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a > >>> problem. In > >>> > > > fact it > >>> > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that > fails to > >>> > reach > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote > at the > >>> roll > >>> > > > call. > >>> > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's > simple to > >>> > > > administer. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing > over? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>> > > > bened...@apache.org> > >>> > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention > as I > >>> would > >>> > like > >>> > > > after > >>> > > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the > document I > >>> > raised > >>> > > > this as > >>> > > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to > a > >>> simple > >>> > > > majority of > >>> > > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple > majority of > >>> the > >>> > > > "active > >>> > > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I > think you > >>> can > >>> > > > consider > >>> > > > > that a strong consensus. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is > >>> likely to > >>> > > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate > themselves in > >>> the > >>> > roll > >>> > > > call, > >>> > > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a > >>> problem. > >>> > In > >>> > > > fact it > >>> > > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that > fails > >>> to > >>> > reach > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their > vote at > >>> the > >>> > roll > >>> > > > call. > >>> > > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's > simple > >>> to > >>> > > > administer. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned > about this: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This > is an > >>> > email > >>> > > > to dev@ > >>> > > > > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you > active > >>> on > >>> > the > >>> > > > project > >>> > > > > and > >>> > > > > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 > months?”. > >>> This > >>> > is > >>> > > > > strictly an > >>> > > > > exercise to get quorum count and in no way > restricts > >>> ability > >>> > to > >>> > > > > participate > >>> > > > > during this time window. A super-majority of this > count > >>> > becomes > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to > pass a > >>> motion, > >>> > > > with new > >>> > > > > PMC > >>> > > > > members added to the calculation. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from > folks in > >>> roll > >>> > > > call, and > >>> > > > > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say > >>> we'll do > >>> > > > something, > >>> > > > > it's another to follow through. A glance at any > active > >>> > community > >>> > > > > member's > >>> > > > > review board (including my own) will confirm that. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Just to provide a quick example with some rough > numbers > >>> - it > >>> > > > doesn't > >>> > > > > seem > >>> > > > > unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of > 15-20 > >>> votes. > >>> > > > On the > >>> > > > > low > >>> > > > > end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything > and on > >>> the > >>> > high > >>> > > > end, > >>> > > > > 14. > >>> > > > > On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would > fail. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased > >>> > participation > >>> > > > and a > >>> > > > > higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we > don't > >>> set the > >>> > > > bar so > >>> > > > > high > >>> > > > > we can't get anything done. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Anyone else share this sentiment? > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell > >>> > > > > <dcapw...@apple.com.invalid> > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > +1 nb > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña > < > >>> > > > > a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > +1 nb > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain > Lebresne < > >>> > > > > lebre...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> +1 (binding) > >>> > > > > > >> -- > >>> > > > > > >> Sylvain > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin > Lerer < > >>> > > > > > >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > >>> > > > > > >> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus > Eriksson < > >>> > > > > marc...@apache.org> > >>> > > > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> +1 > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam > Tunnicliffe ( > >>> > > > s...@beobal.com) > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>>>> +1 (binding) > >>> > > > > > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>> +1 nb > >>> > > > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb > Wever > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 (binding) > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua > McKenzie > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I propose the following: > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week > (close at > >>> > end of > >>> > > > day > >>> > > > > > >> 6/23/20) > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the > wiki > >>> we > >>> > > > didn't get > >>> > > > > on > >>> > > > > > >> gdoc > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. committer and community votes are > >>> considered > >>> > > > advisory / > >>> > > > > > >>>> non-binding > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Any objections / revisions to the above? > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ~Josh > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>> > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>> > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>> > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
