Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Probably worth linking to the apache CoC in our wiki if we haven't already. On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:31 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC > shortly. > > :) > > > > I am satisfied with Benedict's clarification. ASF CoC and processes > outlined in there are fine. > > Dinesh > > > > > ~Josh > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM Aaron Morton > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> - > >> Aaron Morton > >> New Zealand > >> @aaronmorton > >> > >> CEO > >> Apache Cassandra Consulting > >> http://www.thelastpickle.com > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes > >>> decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for > >>> interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to > >> lean > >>> on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the > formulation > >> of > >>> the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead > of > >>> specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first > >> attempt > >>> to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause > unnecessary > >>> friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly. > >>> > >>> The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in > decision-making > >>> when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope > >> definitely > >>> isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals > >> (i.e. > >>> one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which > it > >>> seems to me you are addressing here? > >>> > >>> Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for > >>> handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to > that > >>> very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're > >> looking > >>> for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different > >>> guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to > >>> undertake, and seek consensus for. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" wrote: > >>> > On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams > >>> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi > >>> wrote: > > 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct > >>> violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not > >>> call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the > PMC > >>> responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC > violations > >>> against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? > > I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People > may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them > >> and > act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate. > >>> > >>>We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC > violations > >>> are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. > >> This > >>> is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We > >>> should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, > >>> otherwise it feels incomplete to me. > >>> > >>>Dinesh > >>> > >>>[1] > >>> > >> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines > >>> > - > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC shortly. > :) > I am satisfied with Benedict's clarification. ASF CoC and processes outlined in there are fine. Dinesh > ~Josh > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM Aaron Morton > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> - >> Aaron Morton >> New Zealand >> @aaronmorton >> >> CEO >> Apache Cassandra Consulting >> http://www.thelastpickle.com >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith >> wrote: >> >>> The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes >>> decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for >>> interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to >> lean >>> on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation >> of >>> the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of >>> specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first >> attempt >>> to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary >>> friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly. >>> >>> The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making >>> when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope >> definitely >>> isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals >> (i.e. >>> one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it >>> seems to me you are addressing here? >>> >>> Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for >>> handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that >>> very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're >> looking >>> for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different >>> guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to >>> undertake, and seek consensus for. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" wrote: >>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams >>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi >>> wrote: > 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct >>> violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not >>> call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC >>> responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations >>> against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them >> and act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate. >>> >>>We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations >>> are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. >> This >>> is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We >>> should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, >>> otherwise it feels incomplete to me. >>> >>>Dinesh >>> >>>[1] >>> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines >>>- >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Vote results: Binding +1's: 17 Binding +0's: 1 Binding -1's: 0 Non-binding +1's: 9 Non-binding +0's: 1 Non-binding -1's: 0 The vote passes. pmc quorum for the next six months (or whatever cadence we decide to roll call on) will be 18, with low watermark of simple majority to pass pmc votes defined as 10. Thanks everyone for the great discussion on the topic and all the collaboration. I'll update the wiki to reflect the state of governance on the project. Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC shortly. :) ~Josh On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM Aaron Morton wrote: > +1 > > - > Aaron Morton > New Zealand > @aaronmorton > > CEO > Apache Cassandra Consulting > http://www.thelastpickle.com > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith > wrote: > > > The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes > > decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for > > interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to > lean > > on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation > of > > the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of > > specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first > attempt > > to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary > > friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly. > > > > The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making > > when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope > definitely > > isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals > (i.e. > > one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it > > seems to me you are addressing here? > > > > Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for > > handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that > > very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're > looking > > for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different > > guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to > > undertake, and seek consensus for. > > > > > > > > > > On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi > > wrote: > > >> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct > > violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not > > call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC > > responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations > > against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? > > > > > > I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People > > > may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them > and > > > act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate. > > > > We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations > > are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. > This > > is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We > > should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, > > otherwise it feels incomplete to me. > > > > Dinesh > > > > [1] > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to lean on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation of the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first attempt to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly. The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope definitely isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals (i.e. one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it seems to me you are addressing here? Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're looking for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to undertake, and seek consensus for. On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" wrote: > On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: >> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? > > I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People > may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and > act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate. We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. This is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, otherwise it feels incomplete to me. Dinesh [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: >> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I >> assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as >> such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. >> We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members >> reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? > > I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People > may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and > act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate. We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. This is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, otherwise it feels incomplete to me. Dinesh [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Jordan West wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > >> 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day >> is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1 >> business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which >> gives enough time to cover everyone in the community. We want to avoid >> people getting disenfranchised due to their location. I propose we make >> this longer and avoid using 'business day' language. >> >> > I'll take responsibility for that. It was one of the discussions on the > google doc during the initial round of feedback. The intention was to > ensure folks didn't feel obligated to check the mailing list on the > weekends or holidays (regardless of location) since we are all volunteering > our time. I intended it to mean "not on weekends or holidays for you". We > can use more specific language if we feel its necessary. > I do agree with the intent of not being burdensome for a community of volunteers with lives beyond the project. However I think 48 or 72 hours is probably better and left unqualified because it's tricky. Besides holidays which vary wildly, the weekend starts on the US Friday in the Asia Pacific region. Also Friday/Saturday is the weekend in Israel. > >> Thanks, >> >> Dinesh >> >> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto >> >>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, sankalp kohli >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani wrote: >>> +1 (b) On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours. > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan < >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 non-binding >> >>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski > wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: +1 >> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie < jmcken...@apache.org> >> wrote: > > Link to doc: > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for >> votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to > the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water >> mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall >> due > to low participation. > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time >> and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> > -- http://twitter.com/tjake >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I > assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. > We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We > should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members > reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day > is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1 > business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which > gives enough time to cover everyone in the community. We want to avoid > people getting disenfranchised due to their location. I propose we make > this longer and avoid using 'business day' language. > > I'll take responsibility for that. It was one of the discussions on the google doc during the initial round of feedback. The intention was to ensure folks didn't feel obligated to check the mailing list on the weekends or holidays (regardless of location) since we are all volunteering our time. I intended it to mean "not on weekends or holidays for you". We can use more specific language if we feel its necessary. > Thanks, > > Dinesh > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > > On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, sankalp kohli > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani wrote: > > > >> +1 (b) > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie > >> wrote: > >> > >>> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 > >> hours. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan < > jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > +1 non-binding > > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski > >>> wrote: > > > > +1 > > > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: > >> +1 > >> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie < > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Link to doc: > >>> > > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > >>> > >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: > >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > votes > >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to > >>> the > >>> calculation." > >>> > >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > >> water > mark > >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > >>> stall > due > >>> to low participation. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > >>> - pmc votes considered binding > >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory > >>> > >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > >>> our > >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > >>> calculation on subsequent votes. > >>> > >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > >>> time > and > >>> collaboration on this. > >>> > >>> ~Josh > >> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://twitter.com/tjake > >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+0 I realize this is a vote thread and I am late for feedback but I wanted to point out a couple things: 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF? 2. Regarding vetos, I see we're aligning on ASF principles. Using -1s in a discussion or debate is very unproductive therefore we should explicitly call out that vetos (or threat of a veto) should not be used in any discussion. It should only be issued per the ASF guidelines[1]. 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1 business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which gives enough time to cover everyone in the community. We want to avoid people getting disenfranchised due to their location. I propose we make this longer and avoid using 'business day' language. Thanks, Dinesh [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, sankalp kohli wrote: > > +1 > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani wrote: > >> +1 (b) >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie >> wrote: >> >>> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 >> hours. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan >>> wrote: >>> +1 non-binding > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski >>> wrote: > > +1 > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: >> +1 >> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie < >> jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Link to doc: >>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >>> >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to >>> the >>> calculation." >>> >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low >> water mark >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of >>> stall due >>> to low participation. >>> >>> >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 >>> - pmc votes considered binding >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory >>> >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as >>> our >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark >>> calculation on subsequent votes. >>> >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the >>> time and >>> collaboration on this. >>> >>> ~Josh >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://twitter.com/tjake >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani wrote: > +1 (b) > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 > hours. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan > > wrote: > > > > > +1 non-binding > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: > > > >> +1 > > > >> > > > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Link to doc: > > > >>> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > >>> > > > >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > > votes > > > >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to > > the > > > >>> calculation." > > > >>> > > > >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > water > > > mark > > > >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > > stall > > > due > > > >>> to low participation. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > >>> - pmc votes considered binding > > > >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory > > > >>> > > > >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > > our > > > >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > >>> calculation on subsequent votes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > > time > > > and > > > >>> collaboration on this. > > > >>> > > > >>> ~Josh > > > >> > > > >> > - > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > >> > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://twitter.com/tjake >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (b) On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours. > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan > wrote: > > > +1 non-binding > > > > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski > wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: > > >> +1 > > >> > > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Link to doc: > > >>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > >>> > > >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: > > >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > votes > > >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to > the > > >>> calculation." > > >>> > > >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water > > mark > > >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall > > due > > >>> to low participation. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > >>> - pmc votes considered binding > > >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory > > >>> > > >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > > >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > >>> calculation on subsequent votes. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time > > and > > >>> collaboration on this. > > >>> > > >>> ~Josh > > >> > > >> - > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > -- http://twitter.com/tjake
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours. On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan wrote: > +1 non-binding > > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > > > > +1 > > > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: > >> +1 > >> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > >>> > >>> Link to doc: > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > >>> > >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: > >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > votes > >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > >>> calculation." > >>> > >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water > mark > >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > due > >>> to low participation. > >>> > >>> > >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > >>> - pmc votes considered binding > >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory > >>> > >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > >>> calculation on subsequent votes. > >>> > >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > and > >>> collaboration on this. > >>> > >>> ~Josh > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 non-binding > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > > +1 > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: >> +1 >> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: >>> >>> Link to doc: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >>> >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the >>> calculation." >>> >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due >>> to low participation. >>> >>> >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 >>> - pmc votes considered binding >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory >>> >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark >>> calculation on subsequent votes. >>> >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and >>> collaboration on this. >>> >>> ~Josh >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: +1 On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: Link to doc: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance Change since previous cancelled vote: "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation." This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due to low participation. - Vote will run through 6/24/20 - pmc votes considered binding - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote - committer and community votes considered advisory Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark calculation on subsequent votes. Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and collaboration on this. ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:23 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers > that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two > committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. > One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in > both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by > skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not > review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity. Ah, I understand now, thank you Benedict for explaining. If I understand correctly the intention is that all patches must be ~"deeply understood" by at least two contributors (author + reviewer) and one of those contributors must be a comitter. In addition, at least two committers must support the patch being merged not necessarily having done a detailed review. I like the phrase "+1. I support this patch" vs a "+1 I have reviewed this patch and support it". I suppose that if the +1 is coming from a person in the reviewer field the "I have reviewed it" is perhaps implicit. > Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this > has come up multiple times. I was confused but now I think I understand it and agree with you that the wording is not in conflict. After the document is finalized I can add a FAQ section and, if people think it reasonable, to https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/how_to_commit.html . -Joey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (nb) On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 17:15, Eric Evans wrote: > +0 > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > Link to doc: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > calculation." > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > due > > to low participation. > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > >- pmc votes considered binding > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > and > > collaboration on this. > > > > ~Josh > > > > -- > Eric Evans > john.eric.ev...@gmail.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+0 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 >- pmc votes considered binding >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 > On 20 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Also, +1 On 22/06/2020, 11:23, "Benedict Elliott Smith" wrote: If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity. Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times. On 22/06/2020, 02:56, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1 committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model should further be de-risked. Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a burden. On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: > +1 (nb). > > Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes! > > I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code > modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other > contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two > +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice. > Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a > patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed > that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but > insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this > was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly > follow the to be adopted guidelines. > > Thanks again! > -Joey > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > +1 binding > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > > > > > +1 (nb) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > > votes > > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added > to the > > > > > calculation." > > > > > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > water > > > mark > > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall > > > > due > > > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time > > > > and > > > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > > @spyced > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity. Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times. On 22/06/2020, 02:56, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1 committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model should further be de-risked. Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a burden. On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: > +1 (nb). > > Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes! > > I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code > modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other > contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two > +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice. > Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a > patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed > that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but > insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this > was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly > follow the to be adopted guidelines. > > Thanks again! > -Joey > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > +1 binding > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > > > > > +1 (nb) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > > votes > > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added > to the > > > > > calculation." > > > > > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > water > > > mark > > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall > > > > due > > > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time > > > > and > > > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > > @spyced > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 > On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:54, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > +1 > -- > Sylvain > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 - pmc votes considered binding - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote - committer and community votes considered advisory >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 -- Sylvain On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > - pmc votes considered binding > > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson wrote: > +1 > > > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > - pmc votes considered binding > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > +1 (binding) > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory +1 (binding) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
>- Vote will run through 6/24/20 >- pmc votes considered binding >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >- committer and community votes considered advisory +1 (binding) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1 committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model should further be de-risked. Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a burden. On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: > +1 (nb). > > Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes! > > I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code > modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other > contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two > +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice. > Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a > patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed > that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but > insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this > was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly > follow the to be adopted guidelines. > > Thanks again! > -Joey > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > +1 binding > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > > > > > +1 (nb) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > > votes > > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added > to the > > > > > calculation." > > > > > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > water > > > mark > > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall > > > > due > > > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time > > > > and > > > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > > @spyced > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Link to doc: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 >- pmc votes considered binding >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (nb). Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes! I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice. Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly follow the to be adopted guidelines. Thanks again! -Joey On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad wrote: > > +1 binding > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > > > +1 (nb) > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > votes > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > > > calculation." > > > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water > > mark > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > > > due > > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > > > and > > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > @spyced > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 binding On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > +1 (nb) > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > votes > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > > calculation." > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water > mark > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > > due > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > > and > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Ellis > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > @spyced > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (nb) On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Link to doc: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > calculation." > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > due > > to low participation. > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > >- pmc votes considered binding > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > and > > collaboration on this. > > > > ~Josh > > > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Link to doc: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 >- pmc votes considered binding >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh > -- Jonathan Ellis co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 nb From: Scott Andreas Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 11:00:15 AM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2) +1 nb > On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > +1 (binding / present / active) > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova > wrote: > >> +1(non-binding) >> >> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Link to doc: >>>> >>>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >>>> >>>> Change since previous cancelled vote: >>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for >> votes >>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the >>>> calculation." >>>> >>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water >> mark >>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall >>> due >>>> to low participation. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 >>>> - pmc votes considered binding >>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory >>>> >>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our >>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark >>>> calculation on subsequent votes. >>>> >>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time >>> and >>>> collaboration on this. >>>> >>>> ~Josh >>>> >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 nb > On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > +1 (binding / present / active) > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova > wrote: > >> +1(non-binding) >> >> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie >>> wrote: >>> Link to doc: >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance Change since previous cancelled vote: "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for >> votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation." This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water >> mark to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall >>> due to low participation. - Vote will run through 6/24/20 - pmc votes considered binding - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote - committer and community votes considered advisory Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark calculation on subsequent votes. Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time >>> and collaboration on this. ~Josh >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (binding / present / active) On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > +1(non-binding) > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > votes > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > > calculation." > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water > mark > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > > due > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > > and > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1(non-binding) On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Link to doc: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > calculation." > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > due > > to low participation. > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > >- pmc votes considered binding > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > and > > collaboration on this. > > > > ~Josh > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Link to doc: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 >- pmc votes considered binding >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (nb) On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 23:18, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > +1 (and present?) > > > > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > Link to doc: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > calculation." > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > due > > to low participation. > > > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > - pmc votes considered binding > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > and > > collaboration on this. > > > > ~Josh > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (and present?) > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
[VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Link to doc: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance Change since previous cancelled vote: "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation." This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due to low participation. - Vote will run through 6/24/20 - pmc votes considered binding - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote - committer and community votes considered advisory Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark calculation on subsequent votes. Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and collaboration on this. ~Josh
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change >> the >> > > voting rules >> > > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority >> here >> > > though. I'm >> > > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to >> > pass the >> > > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't >> see >> > the >> > > point in >> > > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by >> > everyone >> > > else. >> > > > >> > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Jon >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < >> > > jmcken...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote >> simple >> > > majority, >> > > > or >> > > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can >> just >> > > follow up >> > > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would >> prefer >> > we go >> > > that >> > > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and >> > > incrementally >> > > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) >> > > > > >> > > > > ~Josh >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < >> > > jmcken...@apache.org> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have >> misread: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple >> > > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the >> roll >> > > call. For >> > > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need >> a >> > > minimum of 11 >> > > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 >> > to be >> > > +1 to >> > > > > pass, >> > > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this >> > isn't >> > > what I >> > > > > >> intended. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as >> > written as >> > > > reflected >> > > > > > by my +1 vote. :) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it >> / >> > modify >> > > the >> > > > wiki >> > > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote >> again. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote >> will >> > pass >> > > which I >> > > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, >> > > Consensus from >> > > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority >> > since >> > > none of >> > > > this >> > > > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're >> > bikeshedding >> > > against >> > > > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive >> > intent and >> > > > > alignment >> > > > > > between response to roll call and participation. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai < >> &g
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> > > > Thanks, > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote > simple > > > majority, > > > > or > > > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can > just > > > follow up > > > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer > > we go > > > that > > > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > > > incrementally > > > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the > roll > > > call. For > > > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a > > > minimum of 11 > > > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 > > to be > > > +1 to > > > > > pass, > > > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this > > isn't > > > what I > > > > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as > > written as > > > > reflected > > > > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / > > modify > > > the > > > > wiki > > > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote > again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote > will > > pass > > > which I > > > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, > > > Consensus from > > > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority > > since > > > none of > > > > this > > > > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're > > bikeshedding > > > against > > > > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive > > intent and > > > > > alignment > > > > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai < > > yc25c...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 nb > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > > > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the > > super-majority > > > of votes > > > > > >> >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> > > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll > > call. For > > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a > > minimum of 11 > > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 > to be > > +1 to > > > > pass, > > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this > isn't > > what I > > > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as > written as > > > reflected > > > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / > modify > > the > > > wiki > > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will > pass > > which I > > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, > > Consensus from > > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority > since > > none of > > > this > > > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're > bikeshedding > > against > > > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive > intent and > > > > alignment > > > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai < > yc25c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 nb > > > > >> > > > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the > super-majority > > of votes > > > > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority > came a > > > distant > > > > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate > that > > > decision, I > > > > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply > address the > > vote > > > > floor, > > > > >> > but just my 2c. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's > suggestion was a > > > pretty > > > > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > > > > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to > simply > > define > > > how > > > > >> many > > > > >> > +1's > > > > >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of > the >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > > reflected > > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass > which I > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, > Consensus from > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since > none of > > this > > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding > against > > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > > > alignment > > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai > wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 nb > > > >> > > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > > >> > > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority > of votes > > > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a > > distant > > > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that > > decision, I > > > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the > vote > > > floor, > > > >> > but just my 2c. > > > >> > > > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a > > pretty > > > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > > > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply > define > > how > > > >> many > > > >> > +1's > > > >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the > roll > > call, > > > >> > simple > > > >> > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it > passes? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > For example: > > > >> > > > > > >> > >- 33 pmc members > > > >> > >- 16 roll call > > > >> > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote > with +1, > > > >> passes > > > >> > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > > >> > > > > > >> > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while > keeping > > > >> with > > > >> > the > > > >> > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough > participation that > > a > > > >> vote > > > >> > should > > > >> > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar > a
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's more than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed into a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though. Might be useful to take a roll call now just to get a feel for what we're voting for. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately > afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've > conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we > call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call. > > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a > row. > > On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: > > I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. > > Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote > ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we > can > > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, > it's > > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > > inconsistency into our voting. > > > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple > majority > > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we > will > > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the > voting rules > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here > though. I'm > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the > point in > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone > else. > > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > > > Thanks, > > Jon > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple > majority, > > or > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just > follow up > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go > that > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > incrementally > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll > call. For > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a > minimum of 11 > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be > +1 to > > > pass, > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't > what I > > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > > reflected > > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass > which I > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, > Consensus from > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since > none of > > this > > > > is set in stone and
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call. Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a row. On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > inconsistency into our voting. > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > Thanks, > Jon > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, > or > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > ~Josh > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to > > pass, > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > reflected > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of > this > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > > alignment > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > > > > > >> +1 nb > > >> > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > >> > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I personall
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > inconsistency into our voting. > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > Thanks, > Jon > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, > or > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > ~Josh > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to > > pass, > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > reflected > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of > this > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > > alignment > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > > > > > >> +1 nb > > >> > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > >> > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a > distant > > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that > decision, I > > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote > > floor, > > >> > but just my 2c. > > >> > > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > >> > > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a > pretty > > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing inconsistency into our voting. Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. Thanks, Jon On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, or > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > ~Josh > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to > pass, > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > >> intended. > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > alignment > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > > > >> +1 nb > >> > >> From: Jon Haddad > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > >> > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >> bened...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote > floor, > >> > but just my 2c. > >> > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > >> > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > >> > > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how > >> many > >> > +1's > >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > >> > simple > >> > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > >> > > > >> > > For example: > >> > > > >> > >- 33 pmc members > >> > >- 16 roll call > >> > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, or super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally revising things is Safe and OK. :) ~Josh On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I >> intended. > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected > by my +1 vote. :) > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and alignment > between response to roll call and participation. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > >> +1 nb >> ____ >> From: Jon Haddad >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc >> >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < >> bened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, >> > but just my 2c. >> > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: >> > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < >> jmcken...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. >> > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how >> many >> > +1's >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, >> > simple >> > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? >> > > >> > > For example: >> > > >> > >- 33 pmc members >> > >- 16 roll call >> > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, >> passes >> > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass >> > > >> > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping >> with >> > the >> > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a >> vote >> > should >> > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from >> > "simple >> > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's >> required", >> > but >> > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on >> showing >> > up. We >> > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which >> > might >> > > further encourage participation. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < >> > jmcken...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it >> > stands. >> > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of >> that" >> > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. >> > yesterday; one >> > >&g
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, > so in that case 8 +1's. I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > intended. I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected by my +1 vote. :) If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and alignment between response to roll call and participation. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > +1 nb > > From: Jon Haddad > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, > > but just my 2c. > > > > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > > > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how > many > > +1's > > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > > simple > > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > > > > > For example: > > > > > >- 33 pmc members > > >- 16 roll call > > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, > passes > > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > > > > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with > > the > > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a > vote > > should > > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from > > "simple > > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", > > but > > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing > > up. We > > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which > > might > > > further encourage participation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it > > stands. > > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of > that" > > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. > > yesterday; one > > >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an > imposition. > > >> > > >> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki > > article > > >> and call a new vote? > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. > > >>> > > >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a > simple > > >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. > > For > > >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum > > of 11 > > >>> binding votes participat
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb From: Jon Haddad Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc Yes, this is my understanding as well. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, > but just my 2c. > > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how many > +1's > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > simple > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > > > For example: > > > >- 33 pmc members > >- 16 roll call > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, passes > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with > the > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a vote > should > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from > "simple > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", > but > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing > up. We > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which > might > > further encourage participation. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it > stands. > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. > yesterday; one > >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. > >> > >> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki > article > >> and call a new vote? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. > >>> > >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. > For > >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum > of 11 > >>> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 > to pass, > >>> so in that case 8 +1's. > >>> > >>> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple > majority > >>> > (I am) and calling a new vote? > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out > that > >>> there > >>> > are > >>> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an > impediment. I > >>> don't > >>> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules > as > >>> > > formulated, either, for the record. > >>> > > > >>> > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a > problem, just > >>> > wanted > >>> > > to check. > >>> > > > >>> > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as > the > >>> low > >>> > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > >>> > > > &g
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Yes, this is my understanding as well. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, > but just my 2c. > > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how many > +1's > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > simple > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > > > For example: > > > >- 33 pmc members > >- 16 roll call > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, passes > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with > the > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a vote > should > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from > "simple > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", > but > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing > up. We > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which > might > > further encourage participation. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it > stands. > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. > yesterday; one > >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. > >> > >> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki > article > >> and call a new vote? > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. > >>> > >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. > For > >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum > of 11 > >>> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 > to pass, > >>> so in that case 8 +1's. > >>> > >>> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams < > dri...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple > majority > >>> > (I am) and calling a new vote? > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out > that > >>> there > >>> > are > >>> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an > impediment. I > >>> don't > >>> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules > as > >>> > > formulated, either, for the record. > >>> > > > >>> > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a > problem, just > >>> > wanted > >>> > > to check. > >>> > > > >>> > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as > the > >>> low > >>> > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>> > bened...@apache.org> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out > that > >>> there > >>> > are > >>> > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an > impediment. I > >>> > don't > >>> > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting > rules as > >>> > > > formulated, either, for the record. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a > good > >>> > thing to > >>> > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without > >>> discussing > >>> > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been > >>> responded > >>> > to, > >>> > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed > from > >>> > poorly > >>> > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ > indicative > >>> votes > >>> > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), > and > >>> > avoiding >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty reasonable one and am in favor of it. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how many +1's > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, simple > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > For example: > >- 33 pmc members >- 16 roll call >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, passes >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with the > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a vote should > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from "simple > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", but > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing up. We > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which might > further encourage participation. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it stands. >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. yesterday; one >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. >> >> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki article >> and call a new vote? >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. >>> >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 >>> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, >>> so in that case 8 +1's. >>> >>> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams >>> wrote: >>> >>> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority >>> > (I am) and calling a new vote? >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that >>> there >>> > are >>> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I >>> don't >>> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as >>> > > formulated, either, for the record. >>> > > >>> > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just >>> > wanted >>> > > to check. >>> > > >>> > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the >>> low >>> > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < >>> > bened...@apache.org> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that >>> there >>> > are >>> > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I >>> > don't >>> > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as >>> > > > formulated, either, for the record. >>> > > > >>> > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good >>> > thing to >>> > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without >>> discussing >>> > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been >>> responded >>> > to, >>> > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from >>> > poorly >>> > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative >>> votes >>> > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and >>> > avoiding >>> > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather >>> > than a >>> > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum >>> is >>> > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the >>> community >>> > > > before a formal vote. >>> > > > >>> > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this >>> vote >>> > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed >>> > lowering the >>> > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since >>> if >>> > you >>> > > > have >>> > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a >>> > > > super-majority of >>> > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. >>> > > > >>> > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a >>> super >>> > > > majority >>> > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. >>> > > > >>> > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is >>> likely to >>> > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Race condition on that last one Benedict. What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how many +1's are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, simple majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? For example: - 33 pmc members - 16 roll call - 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, passes - If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with the lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a vote should reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from "simple majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", but hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing up. We could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which might further encourage participation. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it stands. > I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" > revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. yesterday; one > day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. > > @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki article > and call a new vote? > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > >> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. >> >> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, >> so in that case 8 +1's. >> >> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams >> wrote: >> >> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority >> > (I am) and calling a new vote? >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: >> > > >> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there >> > are >> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I >> don't >> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as >> > > formulated, either, for the record. >> > > >> > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just >> > wanted >> > > to check. >> > > >> > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low >> > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < >> > bened...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there >> > are >> > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I >> > don't >> > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as >> > > > formulated, either, for the record. >> > > > >> > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good >> > thing to >> > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without >> discussing >> > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been >> responded >> > to, >> > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from >> > poorly >> > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative >> votes >> > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and >> > avoiding >> > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather >> > than a >> > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is >> > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the >> community >> > > > before a formal vote. >> > > > >> > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this >> vote >> > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed >> > lowering the >> > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since >> if >> > you >> > > > have >> > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a >> > > > super-majority of >> > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. >> > > > >> > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a >> super >> > > > majority >> > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. >> > > > >> > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is >> likely to >> > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the >> roll >> > > > call, >> > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a >> problem. In >> > > > fact it >> > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to >> > reach >> > > > the >> > > > low watermark all
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I intended. I intended that there would be a minimum of 11 votes _in favour_, not simply 11 votes. The reason being that otherwise, if you oppose something, you are incentivised _not to vote_ which is a disincentive to participation we should avoid. As formulated today, we would need 14 votes _in favour_. On 17/06/2020, 19:13, "Jon Haddad" wrote: Sorry, I was a bit vague there. I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, so in that case 8 +1's. Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams wrote: > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority > (I am) and calling a new vote? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there > are > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just > wanted > > to check. > > > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there > are > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I > don't > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good > thing to > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without discussing > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been responded > to, > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from > poorly > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative votes > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and > avoiding > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather > than a > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community > > > before a formal vote. > > > > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this vote > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. > > > > > > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed > lowering the > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if > you > > > have > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a > > > super-majority of > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. > > > > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super > > > majority > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. > > > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll > > > call, > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In > > > fact it > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to > reach > > > the > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll > > > call. > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > > > administer. > > > > > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > bened...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would > like > > > after > > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I > raised > > > this as > > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple > > > majority of > > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the > > > "active > > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it stands. I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. yesterday; one day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki article and call a new vote? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > Sorry, I was a bit vague there. > > I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, > so in that case 8 +1's. > > Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams > wrote: > > > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority > > (I am) and calling a new vote? > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there > > are > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I > don't > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just > > wanted > > > to check. > > > > > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low > > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > bened...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there > > are > > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I > > don't > > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > > > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good > > thing to > > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without > discussing > > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been > responded > > to, > > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from > > poorly > > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative > votes > > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and > > avoiding > > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather > > than a > > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is > > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community > > > > before a formal vote. > > > > > > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this > vote > > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > > > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed > > lowering the > > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if > > you > > > > have > > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a > > > > super-majority of > > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. > > > > > > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super > > > > majority > > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. > > > > > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely > to > > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the > roll > > > > call, > > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. > In > > > > fact it > > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to > > reach > > > > the > > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the > roll > > > > call. > > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > > > > administer. > > > > > > > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > > bened...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would > > like > > > > after > > > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I > > raised > > > > this as > > > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple > > > > majority of > > > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of > the > > > > "active > > > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you > can > > > > consider > > > > > that a strong consensus. > > > > > > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely > to > > > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Sorry, I was a bit vague there. I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, so in that case 8 +1's. Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams wrote: > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority > (I am) and calling a new vote? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there > are > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just > wanted > > to check. > > > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there > are > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I > don't > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good > thing to > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without discussing > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been responded > to, > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from > poorly > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative votes > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and > avoiding > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather > than a > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community > > > before a formal vote. > > > > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this vote > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. > > > > > > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed > lowering the > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if > you > > > have > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a > > > super-majority of > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. > > > > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super > > > majority > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. > > > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll > > > call, > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In > > > fact it > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to > reach > > > the > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll > > > call. > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > > > administer. > > > > > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > bened...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would > like > > > after > > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I > raised > > > this as > > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple > > > majority of > > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the > > > "active > > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can > > > consider > > > > that a strong consensus. > > > > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the > roll > > > call, > > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. > In > > > fact it > > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to > reach > > > the > > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the > roll > > > call. > > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > > > administer. > > > > > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > > > > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > > > > > > > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority (I am) and calling a new vote? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there are > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > formulated, either, for the record. > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just wanted > to check. > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low > watermark in vote participation (not approval). > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith > wrote: > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there are > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > > formulated, either, for the record. > > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good thing to > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without discussing > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been responded to, > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from poorly > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative votes > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and avoiding > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather than a > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community > > before a formal vote. > > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this vote > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. > > > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed lowering the > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if you > > have > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a > > super-majority of > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. > > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super > > majority > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll > > call, > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In > > fact it > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach > > the > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll > > call. > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > > administer. > > > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would like > > after > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I raised > > this as > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple > > majority of > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the > > "active > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can > > consider > > > that a strong consensus. > > > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll > > call, > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In > > fact it > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach > > the > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll > > call. > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > > administer. > > > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > > > > > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email > > to dev@ > > > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the > > project > > > and > > > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is > > > strictly an > > > exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to > > > participate > > > during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes > > the > > > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, > > with new > > > PMC > > > members added to the calculation. > > > > > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll > > call, and > > > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there are easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as formulated, either, for the record. Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just wanted to check. I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low watermark in vote participation (not approval). On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there are > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as > formulated, either, for the record. > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good thing to > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without discussing > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been responded to, > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from poorly > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative votes > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and avoiding > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather than a > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community > before a formal vote. > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this vote > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed lowering the > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if you > have > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a > super-majority of > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super > majority > of votes sounds far more reasonable. > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll > call, > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In > fact it > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach > the > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll > call. > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > administer. > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would like > after > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I raised > this as > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple > majority of > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the > "active > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can > consider > > that a strong consensus. > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll > call, > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In > fact it > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach > the > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll > call. > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to > administer. > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > > > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email > to dev@ > > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the > project > > and > > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is > > strictly an > > exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to > > participate > > during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes > the > > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, > with new > > PMC > > members added to the calculation. > > > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll > call, and > > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do > something, > > it's another to follow through. A glance at any active community > > member's > > review board (including my own) will confirm that. > > > > Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it > doesn't > > seem > > unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 votes. > On the > > low >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there are easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I don't think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as formulated, either, for the record. I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good thing to do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without discussing it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been responded to, and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from poorly specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative votes (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and avoiding disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather than a quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the community before a formal vote. I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this vote passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super majority of votes sounds far more reasonable. > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll call, but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In fact it can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach the low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll call. The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to administer. Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would like after > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I raised this as > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple majority of > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the "active > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can consider > that a strong consensus. > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll call, > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In fact it > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach the > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll call. > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to administer. > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project > and > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is > strictly an > exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to > participate > during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes the > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new > PMC > members added to the calculation. > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll call, and > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do something, > it's another to follow through. A glance at any active community > member's > review board (including my own) will confirm that. > > Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it doesn't > seem > unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 votes. On the > low > end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on the high end, > 14. > On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail. > > Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased participation and a > higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set the bar so > high > we can't get anything done. > > Anyone else share this sentiment? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell > > wrote: > > > +1 nb > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña < > a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a super majority of votes sounds far more reasonable. > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll call, but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In fact it can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach the low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll call. The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to administer. Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would like after > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I raised this as > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple majority of > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the "active > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can consider > that a strong consensus. > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll call, > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In fact it > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach the > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll call. > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to administer. > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project > and > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is > strictly an > exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to > participate > during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes the > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new > PMC > members added to the calculation. > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll call, and > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do something, > it's another to follow through. A glance at any active community > member's > review board (including my own) will confirm that. > > Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it doesn't > seem > unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 votes. On the > low > end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on the high end, > 14. > On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail. > > Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased participation and a > higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set the bar so > high > we can't get anything done. > > Anyone else share this sentiment? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell > > wrote: > > > +1 nb > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña < > a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 nb > > > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne < > lebre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 (binding) > > >> -- > > >> Sylvain > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < > > >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 (binding) > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson < > marc...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > +1 > > > > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > >> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 nb > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 (binding) > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > I propose the following: > > > > 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day > > >> 6/23/20) > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I think we need to assume positive intent here. If someone says they will participate then we need to assume they are true to their word. While the concerns are not un-founded, I think the doc as is gives a good starting point for trying this out without being too complicated. If this turns out to be a problem in the future we can always re-visit the governance document. -Jeremiah > On Jun 17, 2020, at 11:21 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith > wrote: > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would like after > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I raised this as > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple majority of > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the "active > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can consider > that a strong consensus. > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to undercount, > since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll call, but will still > vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In fact it can be gamed by > people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach the low watermark all > collaborating to not count their vote at the roll call. The only real > advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to administer. > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > >Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > >> PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ >w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project and >plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is strictly an >exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to participate >during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes the >low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC >members added to the calculation. > >I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll call, and >less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do something, >it's another to follow through. A glance at any active community member's >review board (including my own) will confirm that. > >Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it doesn't seem >unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 votes. On the low >end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on the high end, 14. >On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail. > >Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased participation and a >higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set the bar so high >we can't get anything done. > >Anyone else share this sentiment? > >On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell >wrote: > >> +1 nb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 nb >>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne >> wrote: +1 (binding) -- Sylvain On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < benjamin.le...@datastax.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: >>> +1 (binding) >>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: +1 nb On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > >> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: >> >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >> >> I propose the following: >> >> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >> 2. pmc votes are considered binding >> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / >> non-binding >> >> Any objections / revisions to the above? >> >> Thanks! >> >> ~Josh >> > >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> > >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I would like after initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. However it's worth noting that the active electorate is likely to undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the roll call, but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a problem. In fact it can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to reach the low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the roll call. The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to administer. On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" wrote: Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project and plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is strictly an exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to participate during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes the low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation. I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll call, and less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do something, it's another to follow through. A glance at any active community member's review board (including my own) will confirm that. Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 votes. On the low end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on the high end, 14. On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail. Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased participation and a higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set the bar so high we can't get anything done. Anyone else share this sentiment? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell wrote: > +1 nb > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña > wrote: > > > > +1 nb > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne > wrote: > >> > >> +1 (binding) > >> -- > >> Sylvain > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < > >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson > >>> wrote: > >>> > +1 > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > > >> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > >> > >> +1 nb > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > >>> wrote: > >>> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > > 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day > >> 6/23/20) > unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on > >> gdoc > 2. pmc votes are considered binding > 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh > > >>> > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > >>> > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project and plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. This is strictly an exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to participate during this time window. A super-majority of this count becomes the low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation. I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in roll call, and less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll do something, it's another to follow through. A glance at any active community member's review board (including my own) will confirm that. Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 votes. On the low end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on the high end, 14. On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail. Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased participation and a higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set the bar so high we can't get anything done. Anyone else share this sentiment? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell wrote: > +1 nb > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña > wrote: > > > > +1 nb > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne > wrote: > >> > >> +1 (binding) > >> -- > >> Sylvain > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < > >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson > >>> wrote: > >>> > +1 > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > > >> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > >> > >> +1 nb > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> > >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > >>> wrote: > >>> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > > 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day > >> 6/23/20) > unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on > >> gdoc > 2. pmc votes are considered binding > 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh > > >>> > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > >>> > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña > wrote: > > +1 nb > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> -- >> Sylvain >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson >>> wrote: >>> +1 On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > +1 (binding) > >> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: >> >> +1 nb >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie >>> wrote: >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: >>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance I propose the following: 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day >> 6/23/20) unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on >> gdoc 2. pmc votes are considered binding 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding Any objections / revisions to the above? Thanks! ~Josh >>> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > +1 (binding) > -- > Sylvain > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < > benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 nb > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (binding) > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I propose the following: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day > 6/23/20) > > > > >>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on > gdoc > > > > >>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding > > > > >>> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > > > non-binding > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ~Josh > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) -- Sylvain On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 nb > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 (binding) > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > >>> > > > >>> I propose the following: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > > > >>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > > > >>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding > > > >>> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > > non-binding > > > >>> > > > >>> Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks! > > > >>> > > > >>> ~Josh > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson wrote: > +1 > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > > > > On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > > > > > +1 nb > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (binding) > > >> > > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > >>> > > >>> I propose the following: > > >>> > > >>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > > >>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > > >>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding > > >>> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > non-binding > > >>> > > >>> Any objections / revisions to the above? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> > > >>> ~Josh > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > +1 (binding) > > > On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > > > +1 nb > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > >> +1 (binding) > >> > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > >>> > >>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > >> > >>> > >>> I propose the following: > >>> > >>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > >>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > >>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding > >>> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > >>> > >>> Any objections / revisions to the above? > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> ~Josh > >>> > >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) > On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > +1 nb > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie >> wrote: >> >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: >>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >>> >>> I propose the following: >>> >>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding >>> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding >>> >>> Any objections / revisions to the above? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> ~Josh >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > I propose the following: > > > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > >2. pmc votes are considered binding > >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > Thanks! > > > > ~Josh > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >2. pmc votes are considered binding >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb, thanks for everyone's work on this! From: Jordan West Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:09 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc +1 nb On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jake Luciani wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > I propose the following: > > > > > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day > 6/23/20) > > >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on > gdoc > > >2. pmc votes are considered binding > > >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > > non-binding > > > > > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > -- > http://twitter.com/tjake > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jake Luciani wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > I propose the following: > > > > > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day > 6/23/20) > > >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on > gdoc > > >2. pmc votes are considered binding > > >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > > non-binding > > > > > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > -- > http://twitter.com/tjake >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > +1 > > On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > I propose the following: > > > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > >2. pmc votes are considered binding > >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / > non-binding > > > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > Thanks! > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > -- http://twitter.com/tjake
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote: +1 (binding) On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >2. pmc votes are considered binding >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >2. pmc votes are considered binding >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (non-binding) On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 13:24, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > I propose the following: > > > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > >2. pmc votes are considered binding > >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > Thanks! > > > > ~Josh > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > I propose the following: > > > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > >2. pmc votes are considered binding > >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > > > Thanks! > > > > ~Josh > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >2. pmc votes are considered binding >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (binding) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:32 AM Jeremiah D Jordan wrote: > +1 non-binding. > > Thanks for the work on this! > > > On Jun 16, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > +1 (pmc, binding) > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > >> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > >> > >> I propose the following: > >> > >> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) > >> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc > >> 2. pmc votes are considered binding > >> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > >> > >> Any objections / revisions to the above? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> ~Josh > >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 non-binding. Thanks for the work on this! > On Jun 16, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > +1 (pmc, binding) > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > >> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >> >> I propose the following: >> >> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >> 2. pmc votes are considered binding >> 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding >> >> Any objections / revisions to the above? >> >> Thanks! >> >> ~Josh >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 (pmc, binding) On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > Added unratified draft to the wiki here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > I propose the following: > >1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) >unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc >2. pmc votes are considered binding >3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding > > Any objections / revisions to the above? > > Thanks! > > ~Josh >
[VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Added unratified draft to the wiki here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance I propose the following: 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20) unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc 2. pmc votes are considered binding 3. committer and community votes are considered advisory / non-binding Any objections / revisions to the above? Thanks! ~Josh