One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, or super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally revising things is Safe and OK. :)
~Josh On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > 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. > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I >> intended. > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected > by my +1 vote. :) > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the 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 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 positive intent and alignment > between response to roll call and participation. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 nb >> ________________________________ >> From: Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> >> 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...@apache.org> >> 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 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 >> > >> > >> >
