On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a >> larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring that >> successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to some >> condition on n and m. Majority requires n > m, strict Apache consensus >> requires n >= 3 and m == 0. It is easy to imagine other conditions such as >> n >= 4 and m <= 2 which still have some of the flavor of consensus in that >> a minority can block a decision, but allow forward progress even with >> constant naysayers or occasional random vetoes. > > Personally, I'd suggest keeping these options in our backpocket > and turning back to considering them in case a simple majority > proposal runs into an opposition somehow. At this point, I'd rather > try a simple solution first.
I was in favour of simple majority - but a vote passing with, for example 9+1 and 8-1 is as bad IMO as a vote failing because of alot of +1 and only one -1. So I've changed my mind on this - I think it should be 3/4 majority. This avoids a small minority stopping something, but also doesn't completely throw out consensus. Niall > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
