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
