Please chime in by end of day PST today if you have any further concerns with the state of the doc. I'll call a vote tomorrow morning to last through end of day wednesday if there are no further revisions needed.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > I've revised the wiki to read: > > "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 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." > > > @Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> / @Benedict Elliott Smith > <bened...@apache.org> - did I get that right? > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:00 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> Fair point. I think using the number of votes here as the first roll call >> is reasonable. Good suggestion. >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < >> bened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the >> 7 >> > votes is any less problematic, as it has no recovery mechanism (whereas >> > roll call at worst waits until the next roll call). >> > >> > Anyway, we had 11 votes on the rules, which would be 6 votes if we take >> > 50%, and 7 if we take 66%. I think we'll be fine, whatever we do. >> > >> > On 18/06/2020, 19:48, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >> > >> > 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 < >> > bened...@apache.org> >> > 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" <jmcken...@apache.org> >> > 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 < >> j...@jonhaddad.com> >> > 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 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 <j...@jonhaddad.com> >> > > > > >> 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" < >> j...@jonhaddad.com> >> > > 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 <j...@jonhaddad.com> - want >> to >> > revise >> > > the >> > > > wiki >> > > > > >> > article >> > > > > >> > >> and call a new vote? >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad < >> > > > j...@jonhaddad.com> >> > > > > >> > 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 < >> > > > > >> j...@jonhaddad.com> >> > > > > >> > 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" < >> > > > j...@jonhaddad.com> >> > > > > >> > 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" >> > < >> > > > > >> j...@jonhaddad.com >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >>> 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 >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > <dcapw...@apple.com.invalid> >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > 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) >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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 >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > 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 >> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >>> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> >
