A small clarification on my +1: I went through all the patches from a mostly IP perspective and they seem all to be good. I have a few notes that I shared with Bob so far that can be addressed post import. I wouldn't mind a second pair of eyes looking at IP things, though :)
Cheers Jan -- > On 28.07.2014, at 20:15, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > Cheers > Jan > -- > >> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +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 >>
