(Revised: The Reply-To field on the last email was incorrect. I am also including the diff of the proposed changes to this email per request.)
------------ PMC Members, This is a VOTE to create or amend our official documents. It establishes a new Qualified Lazy Majority voting type, and amends the bylaws to use this new type for RFC votes only. This vote depends on the RFC vote passing. The git branch with the proposed further changes to the bylaws, beyond the RFC process itself, is here: https://github.com/apache/couchdb-www/compare/add-rfc...add-qualified-lazy-majority Per our process, this vote occurs on the Main development list (dev@), and requires a Lazy 2/3 majority, meaning it requires three binding +1 votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes. Only PMC Members can vote on this issue, and no veto is allowed. This vote will run for one week, ending on 12 March 2019 23:59 UTC. -Joan --------------------------------------------------- diff --git a/bylaws.html b/bylaws.html index 4aea136..7503b88 100644 --- a/bylaws.html +++ b/bylaws.html @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ <h3 id="approval">3.4. Approval Models</h3> -<p><strong>We use three different approval models for formal voting</strong>: +<p><strong>We use four different approval models for formal voting</strong>: <ul> <li>RTC (see section 3.5) @@ -273,6 +273,11 @@ <ul> <li>Requires three binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes </ul> + <li>Qualified lazy majority + <ul> + <li>Requires three binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes + <li>In addition, at least one binding +1 vote must be from an individual not directly affiliated with the proposer's employer (if applicable) + </ul> <li>Lazy 2/3 majority <ul> <li>Requires three binding +1 votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes @@ -281,6 +286,8 @@ <p>RTC is only ever used in the context of a code review or a pull request, and does not require a separate vote thread. Each of the other approval models requires a vote thread. +<p>Qualified lazy majority is only used for the <a href="#rfc">RFC process</a>.</p> + <p>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. <p>Which approval model to use is dictated by the table in section 3.6. This is project policy, and can be changed by amending this document. @@ -316,7 +323,7 @@ The process is: <ul> <li>Start a [DISCUSS] thread on <a href="https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@couchdb.apache.org";>the developer mailing list</a>. Discuss your proposal in detail, including which modules/applications are affected, any HTTP API additions and deprecations, and security issues.</li> <li>When there is consensus on the approach from the community, <a href="https://s.apache.org/CouchDB-RFC";>complete the RFC template</a> and work through any final revisions to the document, with the support of the developer mailing list.</li> - <li>Start the RFC <strong>vote</strong> on the developer mailing list. Hold the vote according to the <em>lazy majority process</em>: at least 3 +1 votes, and more binding +1 than binding -1 votes.</li> + <li>Start the RFC <strong>vote</strong> on the developer mailing list. Hold the vote according to the <em>qualified lazy majority process</em>: at least 3 +1 votes, more +1 than -1 votes, and at least one +1 vote must be from someone not directly affiliated with the proposer's employer.</li> </ul> <h3 id="api">3.7 API changes and deprecations</h3> @@ -355,7 +362,7 @@ The process is: <td>A decision on a specific proposal to alter CouchDB in a significant way. <td><a href="https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@couchdb.apache.org";>Main development list</a> <td>No - <td>Lazy majority + <td>Qualified lazy majority <td>No <td>Committers <td>No
