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
> 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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
+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
+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
+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:
> > >
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
+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:
>>>
+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
+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
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.
>
+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
+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
+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
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
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
+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
+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
+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
+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)
>- 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,
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
+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
+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 +
+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:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
+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:
+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
+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
+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
+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:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
+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
+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
+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
+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
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
e
>> > > +1 to
>> > > > > pass,
>> > > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I guess we should
>> intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as
> > written as
> > > > reflected
> > > > > > by my +1 vote. :)
> > &g
> > > > by my +1 vote. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it /
> modify
> > the
> > > wiki
> > > > >
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 an
t; > 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 partic
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
> > > betwee
n'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
t; > 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
> >>
d 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
__
> 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...@a
+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 persona
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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 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
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
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
+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>
>>
+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
> > >
> >
+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
+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
+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
+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:
>>>
>>>
>>
+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
+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
+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
>
&g
+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
+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:
> >
> >
>
+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
+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
+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
>
+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
> >
+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
+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
+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:
>>
>>
+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
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
84 matches
Mail list logo
