couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:15:31 GMT
Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here.

I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed
below is the intent of the rule.

-Joan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws

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

Mime
View raw message