+1 เมื่อ วันอังคารที่ 29 กรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2014, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> เขียนว่า:
> Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here. > > I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed > below is the intent of the rule. > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws > > With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for > getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote > so promptly! > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws > > Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I > really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a > vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos > > I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules > are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a > clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto > outside of RTC. > > If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so. > > In the mean time, I have created an Errata document: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata > > On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sensible. Thanks for catching this! > > > > +1 > > > > Best > > Jan > > -- > > > >> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello folks, > >> > >> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became > >> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP. > >> > >> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on: > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814 > >> > >> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours. > >> > >> Please review and cast your vote. > >> > >> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made, > >> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the > >> outstanding errata. > >> > >> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking > >> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major > >> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions > >> > >> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority" > >> instead of "majority approval" as necessary > >> > >> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC > >> > >> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy > >> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary > >> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else > >> > >> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader > >> > >> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work > >> > >> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones > >> > >> - Added example about using email TAGS > >> > >> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility > >> > >> - Minor fixes for wording and case > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> -- > >> Noah Slater > >> https://twitter.com/nslater > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater >
