Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
That would be changing: "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote outside of RTC." To this: "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a vote outside of RTC." On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for > getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote > so promptly! > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noah Slater" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws > > Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I > really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a > vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos > > I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules > are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a > clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto > outside of RTC. > > If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so. > > In the mean time, I have created an Errata document: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata > > On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sensible. Thanks for catching this! >> >> +1 >> >> Best >> Jan >> -- >> >>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became >>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP. >>> >>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on: >>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814 >>> >>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours. >>> >>> Please review and cast your vote. >>> >>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made, >>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the >>> outstanding errata. >>> >>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking >>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major >>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions >>> >>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority" >>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary >>> >>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC >>> >>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy >>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary >>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else >>> >>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader >>> >>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work >>> >>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones >>> >>> - Added example about using email TAGS >>> >>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility >>> >>> - Minor fixes for wording and case >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> -- >>> Noah Slater >>> https://twitter.com/nslater > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
