I vote +1 for the following reason: The decision Robert proposes below (criteria, guidelines) can't be made reasonably if the PMC is already heavily slanted in that direction. By the time any such action might be taken, the PMC could already be corrupted in that way, meaning such a suggested set of criteria and a clear reason for calling it out is effectively moot.
I feel this proposal strikes the best balance between pragmatism and idealism. It is largely a symbolic gesture, one taken to make the community feel better more than something that would actually prevent the small amount of collusion necessary (a single vote!) to step around it. It shows we care, and it shows we want to take a step towards being proactive against any perceived problem. I will not be crestfallen if this vote fails, but I will continue to advocate for its adoption. PMC members, please make your voices heard, one way or the other. -Joan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, 5 March, 2019 3:37:52 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Bylaws change: Establish a Qualified Lazy Majority vote > type for the RFC process (revised) > > -1 for the following reason: > > "https://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats > > INDIVIDUALS COMPOSE THE ASF > All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the > committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That > is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal > contributions." > > The Qualified Lazy Majority explicitly links an individual > contributors actions with their employee (where they have one) and > therefore, in my opinion, presumes bad faith. > > I agree that some ASF projects appear to have been co-opted by a > single company, that some people may believe this is true of CouchDB > and this deserves a response. > > I would vote _for_ a bylaw change that addressed this head-on. For > example, if we established a remedy for when this occurs (temporary > or permanent suspension, for example) or a definition of what we > would consider an occurrence. Obviously that is a hard problem and > presumably the reason it hasn't yet been proposed. > > B. > > -- > Robert Samuel Newson > rnew...@apache.org > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, at 20:29, Joan Touzet wrote: > > (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 > > >
