couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2014 05:20:58 GMT
On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "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

why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?

- benoit

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message