It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately
afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've conducted
no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we call on the
rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call.
Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" e.g.
by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a row.
On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
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
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
