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