+1 to that clarification. On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
