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 > > > > >
