The wording of the original mail is ambiguous imo.
"The vote requires 2/3 majority of the binding +1s to pass."
This to me reads very much "This vote passes if 2/3 of all votes after
the voting period are +1."
Maybe it's just a wording thing, but it was not clear to me that this
follows the 2/3 majority scheme laid out in the bylaws.
On 16/08/2019 12:51, Dawid Wysakowicz wrote:
AFAIK this voting scheme is described in the "Modifying Bylaws" section,
in the end introducing bylaws is a modify operation ;) . I think it is a
valid point to CC priv...@flink.apache.org in the future. I wouldn't say
it is a must though. The voting scheme requires that every PMC member
has to be reached out directly, via a private address if he/she did not
vote in a thread. So every PMC member should be aware of the voting thread.
Best,
Dawid
On 16/08/2019 12:38, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
I'm very late to the party, but isn't it a bit weird that we're using
a voting scheme that isn't laid out in the bylaws?
Additionally, I would heavily suggest to CC priv...@flink.apache.org,
as we want as many PMC as possible to look at this.
(I would regard the this point as a reason for delaying the vote
conclusion)
On 11/08/2019 10:07, Becket Qin wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to start a voting thread on the project bylaws of Flink. It
aims to help the community coordinate more smoothly. Please see the
bylaws
wiki page below for details.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=120731026
The discussion thread is following:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Flink-project-bylaws-td30409.html
The vote will be open for at least 6 days. PMC members' votes are
considered as binding. The vote requires 2/3 majority of the binding
+1s to
pass.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
