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 >>> > >>> > >>> >>
