I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > inconsistency into our voting. > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > Thanks, > Jon > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
