So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: 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.
I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > intended. I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected by my +1 vote. :) If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and alignment between response to roll call and participation. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 > > > > >
