incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:32:35 GMT
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize
> that a
> >> larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring
> that
> >> successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to
> some
> >> condition on n and m.  Majority requires n > m, strict Apache consensus
> >> requires n >= 3 and m == 0.  It is easy to imagine other conditions
> such as
> >> n >= 4 and m <= 2 which still have some of the flavor of consensus in
> that
> >> a minority can block a decision, but allow forward progress even with
> >> constant naysayers or occasional random vetoes.
> >
> > Personally, I'd suggest keeping these options in our backpocket
> > and turning back to considering them in case a simple majority
> > proposal runs into an opposition somehow. At this point, I'd rather
> > try a simple solution first.
>
> I was in favour of simple majority - but a vote passing with, for
> example 9+1 and 8-1 is as bad IMO as a vote failing because of alot of
> +1 and only one -1.
>
> So I've changed my mind on this - I think it should be 3/4 majority.
> This avoids a small minority stopping something, but also doesn't
> completely throw out consensus.
>

+1 - this sounds like the most reasonable proposal of all.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

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