Benoit, please withdraw your -1 vote. This change is very important and brings the bylaws into line with how the majority of the PMC think -1 votes ought to work.
On 30 July 2014 08:02, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
