couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:06:10 GMT
Just need a +1 from Jason and Joan now before anyone else votes. Heh. :)

On 28 July 2014 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
>>



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

Mime
View raw message