incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:11:55 GMT
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning <> 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.


> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message