Hi Benoit, We already have a notion of Lazy 2/3 Majority in the bylaws as passed for many different vote types. As the -1 veto process is proposed to be dropped outside of justifiable technical blocks on commits, there would then be no more veto _override_ process possible for electing a chair or new PMC member, or modifying official documents.
The intent is therefore to pull forward the scrutiny that the veto override vote would have brought into the initial vote for these specific vote types. That means using a lazy 2/3 majority vote rather than permitting the continued use of blocking vetos - which is problematic and not desired. As an example, your -1 vote on this change is a blocker given the current bylaws, and that is not what the PMC intended when drafting the bylaws. Noah, please correct me if I'm wrong in my summary. -Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benoit Chesneau" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:02:00 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws 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-technicaldecisions. 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
