Fair point. I think using the number of votes here as the first roll call is reasonable. Good suggestion.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the 7 > votes is any less problematic, as it has no recovery mechanism (whereas > roll call at worst waits until the next roll call). > > Anyway, we had 11 votes on the rules, which would be 6 votes if we take > 50%, and 7 if we take 66%. I think we'll be fine, whatever we do. > > On 18/06/2020, 19:48, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of > increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's > more > than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed > into > a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though. > > Might be useful to take a roll call now just to get a feel for what > we're > voting for. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately > > afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've > > conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next > vote we > > call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll > call. > > > > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our > way out" > > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes > in a > > row. > > > > On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. > > > > Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we > couldn't vote > > ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it > so we > > can > > > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc > mid-vote, > > it's > > > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > > > inconsistency into our voting. > > > > > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a > simple > > majority > > > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > > > > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too > high, we > > will > > > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the > > voting rules > > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here > > though. I'm > > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to > pass the > > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see > the > > point in > > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by > everyone > > else. > > > > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jon > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple > > majority, > > > or > > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just > > follow up > > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer > we go > > that > > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > > incrementally > > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
