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
