And this email was supposed to go into the BigCouch vote thread. Sorry! Jan --
> On 29.07.2014, at 11:54, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > A small clarification on my +1: I went through all the patches from a mostly > IP perspective and they seem all to be good. I have a few notes that I shared > with Bob so far that can be addressed post import. I wouldn't mind a second > pair of eyes looking at IP things, though :) > > Cheers > Jan > -- > >> On 28.07.2014, at 20:15, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >>> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> +1 to that clarification. >>> >>>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the >>>> errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the >>>> addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll >>>> need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that. >>>> >>>> That would be changing: >>>> >>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval >>>> model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote >>>> outside of RTC." >>>> >>>> To this: >>>> >>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval >>>> model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a >>>> vote outside of RTC." >>>> >>>>> On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> 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> >>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org >>>>> 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> wrote: >>>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this! >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Jan >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Noah Slater >>>> https://twitter.com/nslater >>>
