couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:14:16 GMT
And this email was supposed to go into the BigCouch vote thread. Sorry!
Jan
--

> On 29.07.2014, at 11:54, Jan Lehnardt <jan@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 <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>> 
>>> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 to that clarification.
>>> 
>>>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <nslater@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 <wohali@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" <nslater@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 <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nslater@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
>>> 

Mime
View raw message