On Jul 30, 2014 7:35 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 30, 2014 7:20 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "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 > > > > why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ? > > > > hrm since discussing in a vote is already too late, I'm actually -1 on that change. I think the 2/3 lazy thing can be harmful and will makes the project more easy to be manipulated for the good or not. I don't see any reason indeed for this 2/3 except introducing more politic than it's needed. > > > - benoit
note that I'm happy to revisit my vote if someone can clarify the intentions behind this change (only the -1 was explained) I'm not on irc these days so sorry if it has been already done on a public channel. - benoit
