Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
References: 
 <CAPFNckiJy6TM5tYCfN7mScH6h0v_eaR7ws5QMfTEGaoo+DoktQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwFCa0sq_aYyt5JhBWwDBT_98gBeamEdLYcPbo-hobgAxzNZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+ULb+t4nZVP9jS-2MwpT_B8jJeu7BW71VTdvC6-4awey9+Rkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmHmDS6E8Avvhx0i=1D2SSwu7XKpdJ8szLaeWf4fH2s+RwanQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPmHmDS6E8Avvhx0i=1D2SSwu7XKpdJ8szLaeWf4fH2s+RwanQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BF18B48D-8566-4EE7-82B0-E2EE63BC6BD1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:14:42 -0400
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)

This whole exercise is pointless.  Just drop the notion of vetoes for all IP=
MC votes and carry on as before.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wro=
te:

> 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> wrot=
e:
>>> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize tha=
t a
>>> larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring tha=
t
>>> successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to s=
ome
>>> condition on n and m.  Majority requires n > m, strict Apache consensus
>>> requires n >=3D 3 and m =3D=3D 0.  It is easy to imagine other condition=
s such as
>>> n >=3D 4 and m <=3D 2 which still have some of the flavor of consensus i=
n that
>>> a minority can block a decision, but allow forward progress even with
>>> constant naysayers or occasional random vetoes.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Niall
>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>=20

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org