> 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 > >
