Agreed, this edit means that -1 votes have full veto power on code changes only, as defined in the bylaws.
In any other context, a -1 is not a veto. A -1 vote can still block a decision (or what would be the point of voting). But a vote will need a minimum of two people voting -1 for a vote to be blocked. That is, the project has to demonstrate that 2/3rds of the people participating in the decision making process agree. If it can do that, the decision proceeds. On 30 July 2014 21:32, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
