You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> on 2020/06/20 15:12:02 UTC
[VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Link to doc:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
Change since previous cancelled vote:
"A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
calculation."
This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
to low participation.
- Vote will run through 6/24/20
- pmc votes considered binding
- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
- committer and community votes considered advisory
Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
calculation on subsequent votes.
Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
collaboration on this.
~Josh
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Andrés de la Peña <a....@gmail.com>.
+1 (nb)
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 17:15, Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +0
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Link to doc:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > calculation."
> >
> > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> due
> > to low participation.
> >
> >
> > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > - pmc votes considered binding
> > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >
> > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > calculation on subsequent votes.
> >
> > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> and
> > collaboration on this.
> >
> > ~Josh
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> john.eric.evans@gmail.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Eric Evans <jo...@gmail.com>.
+0
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
--
Eric Evans
john.eric.evans@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joseph Lynch <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:23 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity.
Ah, I understand now, thank you Benedict for explaining. If I
understand correctly the intention is that all patches must be
~"deeply understood" by at least two contributors (author + reviewer)
and one of those contributors must be a comitter. In addition, at
least two committers must support the patch being merged not
necessarily having done a detailed review.
I like the phrase "+1. I support this patch" vs a "+1 I have reviewed
this patch and support it". I suppose that if the +1 is coming from a
person in the reviewer field the "I have reviewed it" is perhaps
implicit.
> Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times.
I was confused but now I think I understand it and agree with you that
the wording is not in conflict. After the document is finalized I can
add a FAQ section and, if people think it reasonable, to
https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/how_to_commit.html
.
-Joey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
Also, +1
On 22/06/2020, 11:23, "Benedict Elliott Smith" <be...@apache.org> wrote:
If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity.
Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times.
On 22/06/2020, 02:56, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd
committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable
should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1
committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a
healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model
should further be de-risked.
Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a
committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll
see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a
burden.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (nb).
>
> Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes!
>
> I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code
> modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other
> contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two
> +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice.
> Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a
> patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed
> that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but
> insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this
> was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly
> follow the to be adopted guidelines.
>
> Thanks again!
> -Joey
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (nb)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <
> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Link to doc:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > > > >
> > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> > > votes
> > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added
> to the
> > > > > calculation."
> > > > >
> > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
> water
> > > mark
> > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
> stall
> > > > due
> > > > > to low participation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > > > >
> > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
> our
> > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > > > calculation on subsequent votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
> time
> > > > and
> > > > > collaboration on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Josh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan Ellis
> > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > > > @spyced
> > > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity.
Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times.
On 22/06/2020, 02:56, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd
committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable
should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1
committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a
healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model
should further be de-risked.
Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a
committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll
see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a
burden.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (nb).
>
> Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes!
>
> I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code
> modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other
> contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two
> +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice.
> Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a
> patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed
> that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but
> insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this
> was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly
> follow the to be adopted guidelines.
>
> Thanks again!
> -Joey
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (nb)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <
> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Link to doc:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > > > >
> > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> > > votes
> > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added
> to the
> > > > > calculation."
> > > > >
> > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
> water
> > > mark
> > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
> stall
> > > > due
> > > > > to low participation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > > > >
> > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
> our
> > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > > > calculation on subsequent votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
> time
> > > > and
> > > > > collaboration on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Josh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan Ellis
> > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > > > @spyced
> > > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd
committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable
should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1
committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a
healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model
should further be de-risked.
Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a
committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll
see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a
burden.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (nb).
>
> Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes!
>
> I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code
> modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other
> contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two
> +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice.
> Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a
> patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed
> that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but
> insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this
> was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly
> follow the to be adopted guidelines.
>
> Thanks again!
> -Joey
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 binding
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (nb)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <
> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Link to doc:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > > > >
> > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> > > votes
> > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added
> to the
> > > > > calculation."
> > > > >
> > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
> water
> > > mark
> > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
> stall
> > > > due
> > > > > to low participation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > > > >
> > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
> our
> > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > > > calculation on subsequent votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
> time
> > > > and
> > > > > collaboration on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Josh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan Ellis
> > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > > > @spyced
> > > >
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joseph Lynch <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 (nb).
Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes!
I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code
modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other
contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two
+1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice.
Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a
patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed
that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but
insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this
was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly
follow the to be adopted guidelines.
Thanks again!
-Joey
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
>
> +1 binding
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (nb)
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Link to doc:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > > >
> > > > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> > votes
> > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > > > calculation."
> > > >
> > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
> > mark
> > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> > > due
> > > > to low participation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > > calculation on subsequent votes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> > > and
> > > > collaboration on this.
> > > >
> > > > ~Josh
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Ellis
> > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > > @spyced
> > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
+1 binding
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (nb)
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Link to doc:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > >
> > > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> votes
> > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > > calculation."
> > >
> > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
> mark
> > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> > due
> > > to low participation.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > >
> > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > calculation on subsequent votes.
> > >
> > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> > and
> > > collaboration on this.
> > >
> > > ~Josh
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Ellis
> > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > @spyced
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 (nb)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Link to doc:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > calculation."
> >
> > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> due
> > to low participation.
> >
> >
> > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > - pmc votes considered binding
> > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >
> > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > calculation on subsequent votes.
> >
> > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> and
> > collaboration on this.
> >
> > ~Josh
> >
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Link to doc:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
>
--
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Yifan Cai <yc...@gmail.com>.
+1 nb
________________________________
From: Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 11:00:15 AM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <de...@cassandra.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 nb
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding / present / active)
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova <e....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1(non-binding)
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Link to doc:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>>>>
>>>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
>>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
>> votes
>>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
>>>> calculation."
>>>>
>>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
>> mark
>>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
>>> due
>>>> to low participation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>>>> - pmc votes considered binding
>>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
>>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
>>>> calculation on subsequent votes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
>>> and
>>>> collaboration on this.
>>>>
>>>> ~Josh
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>.
+1 nb
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding / present / active)
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova <e....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1(non-binding)
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Link to doc:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>>>>
>>>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
>>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
>> votes
>>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
>>>> calculation."
>>>>
>>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
>> mark
>>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
>>> due
>>>> to low participation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>>>> - pmc votes considered binding
>>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
>>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
>>>> calculation on subsequent votes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
>>> and
>>>> collaboration on this.
>>>>
>>>> ~Josh
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding / present / active)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova <e....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1(non-binding)
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Link to doc:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > >
> > > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> votes
> > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > > calculation."
> > >
> > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
> mark
> > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> > due
> > > to low participation.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > >
> > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > calculation on subsequent votes.
> > >
> > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> > and
> > > collaboration on this.
> > >
> > > ~Josh
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Ekaterina Dimitrova <e....@gmail.com>.
+1(non-binding)
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Link to doc:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > calculation."
> >
> > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> due
> > to low participation.
> >
> >
> > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > - pmc votes considered binding
> > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >
> > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > calculation on subsequent votes.
> >
> > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> and
> > collaboration on this.
> >
> > ~Josh
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Link to doc:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Aleksey Yeshchenko <al...@apple.com.INVALID>.
+1
> On 20 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jasonstack Zhao Yang <zh...@gmail.com>.
+1 (nb)
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 23:18, Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (and present?)
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Link to doc:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> > calculation."
> >
> > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> due
> > to low participation.
> >
> >
> > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > - pmc votes considered binding
> > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >
> > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > calculation on subsequent votes.
> >
> > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> and
> > collaboration on this.
> >
> > ~Josh
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
+1 (and present?)
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
Probably worth linking to the apache CoC in our wiki if we haven't already.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:31 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC
> shortly.
> > :)
> >
>
> I am satisfied with Benedict's clarification. ASF CoC and processes
> outlined in there are fine.
>
> Dinesh
>
>
>
> > ~Josh
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM Aaron Morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> -----------------
> >> Aaron Morton
> >> New Zealand
> >> @aaronmorton
> >>
> >> CEO
> >> Apache Cassandra Consulting
> >> http://www.thelastpickle.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes
> >>> decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for
> >>> interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to
> >> lean
> >>> on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the
> formulation
> >> of
> >>> the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead
> of
> >>> specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first
> >> attempt
> >>> to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause
> unnecessary
> >>> friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly.
> >>>
> >>> The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in
> decision-making
> >>> when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope
> >> definitely
> >>> isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals
> >> (i.e.
> >>> one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which
> it
> >>> seems to me you are addressing here?
> >>>
> >>> Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for
> >>> handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to
> that
> >>> very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're
> >> looking
> >>> for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different
> >>> guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to
> >>> undertake, and seek consensus for.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct
> >>> violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not
> >>> call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the
> PMC
> >>> responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC
> violations
> >>> against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
> >>>> may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them
> >> and
> >>>> act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
> >>>
> >>> We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC
> violations
> >>> are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community.
> >> This
> >>> is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We
> >>> should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document,
> >>> otherwise it feels incomplete to me.
> >>>
> >>> Dinesh
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>.
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC shortly.
> :)
>
I am satisfied with Benedict's clarification. ASF CoC and processes outlined in there are fine.
Dinesh
> ~Josh
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM Aaron Morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> -----------------
>> Aaron Morton
>> New Zealand
>> @aaronmorton
>>
>> CEO
>> Apache Cassandra Consulting
>> http://www.thelastpickle.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes
>>> decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for
>>> interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to
>> lean
>>> on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation
>> of
>>> the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of
>>> specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first
>> attempt
>>> to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary
>>> friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly.
>>>
>>> The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making
>>> when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope
>> definitely
>>> isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals
>> (i.e.
>>> one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it
>>> seems to me you are addressing here?
>>>
>>> Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for
>>> handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that
>>> very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're
>> looking
>>> for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different
>>> guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to
>>> undertake, and seek consensus for.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct
>>> violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not
>>> call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC
>>> responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations
>>> against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
>>>>
>>>> I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
>>>> may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them
>> and
>>>> act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
>>>
>>> We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations
>>> are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community.
>> This
>>> is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We
>>> should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document,
>>> otherwise it feels incomplete to me.
>>>
>>> Dinesh
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
Vote results:
Binding +1's: 17
Binding +0's: 1
Binding -1's: 0
Non-binding +1's: 9
Non-binding +0's: 1
Non-binding -1's: 0
The vote passes.
pmc quorum for the next six months (or whatever cadence we decide to roll
call on) will be 18, with low watermark of simple majority to pass pmc
votes defined as 10.
Thanks everyone for the great discussion on the topic and all the
collaboration. I'll update the wiki to reflect the state of governance on
the project.
Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC shortly.
:)
~Josh
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM Aaron Morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> -----------------
> Aaron Morton
> New Zealand
> @aaronmorton
>
> CEO
> Apache Cassandra Consulting
> http://www.thelastpickle.com
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes
> > decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for
> > interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to
> lean
> > on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation
> of
> > the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of
> > specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first
> attempt
> > to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary
> > friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly.
> >
> > The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making
> > when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope
> definitely
> > isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals
> (i.e.
> > one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it
> > seems to me you are addressing here?
> >
> > Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for
> > handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that
> > very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're
> looking
> > for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different
> > guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to
> > undertake, and seek consensus for.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct
> > violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not
> > call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC
> > responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations
> > against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
> > >
> > > I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
> > > may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them
> and
> > > act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
> >
> > We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations
> > are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community.
> This
> > is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We
> > should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document,
> > otherwise it feels incomplete to me.
> >
> > Dinesh
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Aaron Morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>.
+1
-----------------
Aaron Morton
New Zealand
@aaronmorton
CEO
Apache Cassandra Consulting
http://www.thelastpickle.com
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes
> decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for
> interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to lean
> on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation of
> the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of
> specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first attempt
> to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary
> friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly.
>
> The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making
> when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope definitely
> isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals (i.e.
> one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it
> seems to me you are addressing here?
>
> Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for
> handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that
> very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're looking
> for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different
> guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to
> undertake, and seek consensus for.
>
>
>
>
> On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct
> violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not
> call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC
> responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations
> against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
> >
> > I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
> > may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and
> > act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
>
> We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations
> are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. This
> is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We
> should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document,
> otherwise it feels incomplete to me.
>
> Dinesh
>
> [1]
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes decisions, and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for interpreting the rules on decision-making. The authors' intent was to lean on this to minimise the rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation of the rules (so that we could e.g. use "reasonable" repeatedly, instead of specifying precise expectations), in part because this is our first attempt to codify such rules, and in part because rigidity can cause unnecessary friction to a project that mostly runs smoothly.
The document provides an avenue for resolving disputes in decision-making when these assumptions on behaviour breakdown. However its scope definitely isn't, at least in my opinion, addressing misbehaviour by individuals (i.e. one of the serious breaches listed in part 5 of the Apache CoC), which it seems to me you are addressing here?
Since we reference the ASF CoC, and the ASF provides its own guide for handling CoC complaints (including within projects), that applies to that very CoC (and which you referenced), it's unclear to me what you're looking for. Are you looking for a more project-specific CoC with different guidelines for reporting? This is something you would be welcome to undertake, and seek consensus for.
On 25/06/2020, 02:38, "Dinesh Joshi" <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
>
> I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
> may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and
> act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. This is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, otherwise it feels incomplete to me.
Dinesh
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>.
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
>
> I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
> may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and
> act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
We need to spell out in the document how and where the CoC violations are reported irrespective of the role of the person in the community. This is a critical point to address. ASF spells this out very clearly[1]. We should have a similar statement in the Project Governance document, otherwise it feels incomplete to me.
Dinesh
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#reporting-guidelines
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
I think if we assume good intent, this will be a non-issue. People
may make mistakes, but I try to have faith they will realize them and
act accordingly when told so without any need to escalate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jeremy Hanna <je...@gmail.com>.
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day
>> is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1
>> business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which
>> gives enough time to cover everyone in the community. We want to avoid
>> people getting disenfranchised due to their location. I propose we make
>> this longer and avoid using 'business day' language.
>>
>>
> I'll take responsibility for that. It was one of the discussions on the
> google doc during the initial round of feedback. The intention was to
> ensure folks didn't feel obligated to check the mailing list on the
> weekends or holidays (regardless of location) since we are all volunteering
> our time. I intended it to mean "not on weekends or holidays for you". We
> can use more specific language if we feel its necessary.
>
I do agree with the intent of not being burdensome for a community of volunteers with lives beyond the project. However I think 48 or 72 hours is probably better and left unqualified because it's tricky. Besides holidays which vary wildly, the weekend starts on the US Friday in the Asia Pacific region. Also Friday/Saturday is the weekend in Israel.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dinesh
>>
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>>
>>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 (b)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17
>>>> hours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan <
>> jeremiah.jordan@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 non-binding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Link to doc:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
>>>>>>>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
>>>>>> votes
>>>>>>>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> calculation."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
>>>> water
>>>>>> mark
>>>>>>>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
>>>>> stall
>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>> to low participation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>>>>>>>>> - pmc votes considered binding
>>>>>>>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>>>>>>>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
>>>>>>>>> calculation on subsequent votes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
>>>>> time
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> collaboration on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ~Josh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://twitter.com/tjake
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day
> is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1
> business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which
> gives enough time to cover everyone in the community. We want to avoid
> people getting disenfranchised due to their location. I propose we make
> this longer and avoid using 'business day' language.
>
>
I'll take responsibility for that. It was one of the discussions on the
google doc during the initial round of feedback. The intention was to
ensure folks didn't feel obligated to check the mailing list on the
weekends or holidays (regardless of location) since we are all volunteering
our time. I intended it to mean "not on weekends or holidays for you". We
can use more specific language if we feel its necessary.
> Thanks,
>
> Dinesh
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>
> > On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (b)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17
> >> hours.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan <
> jeremiah.jordan@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1 non-binding
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> >> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Link to doc:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> >>>>>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> >>>> votes
> >>>>>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> calculation."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
> >> water
> >>>> mark
> >>>>>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
> >>> stall
> >>>> due
> >>>>>>> to low participation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> >>>>>>> - pmc votes considered binding
> >>>>>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> >>>>>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
> >>> our
> >>>>>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> >>>>>>> calculation on subsequent votes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
> >>> time
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> collaboration on this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ~Josh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://twitter.com/tjake
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>.
+0
I realize this is a vote thread and I am late for feedback but I wanted to point out a couple things:
1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such. We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We should also clarify how and where are CoC violations against PMC members reported and handled? Should they go to ASF?
2. Regarding vetos, I see we're aligning on ASF principles. Using -1s in a discussion or debate is very unproductive therefore we should explicitly call out that vetos (or threat of a veto) should not be used in any discussion. It should only be issued per the ASF guidelines[1].
3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1 business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which gives enough time to cover everyone in the community. We want to avoid people getting disenfranchised due to their location. I propose we make this longer and avoid using 'business day' language.
Thanks,
Dinesh
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:59 PM, sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (b)
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17
>> hours.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan <je...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 non-binding
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Link to doc:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
>>>>>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
>>>> votes
>>>>>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to
>>> the
>>>>>>> calculation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
>> water
>>>> mark
>>>>>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
>>> stall
>>>> due
>>>>>>> to low participation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>>>>>>> - pmc votes considered binding
>>>>>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>>>>>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
>>> our
>>>>>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
>>>>>>> calculation on subsequent votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
>>> time
>>>> and
>>>>>>> collaboration on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://twitter.com/tjake
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (b)
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17
> hours.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan <je...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 non-binding
> > >
> > > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Link to doc:
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > > >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> > > votes
> > > >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to
> > the
> > > >>> calculation."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low
> water
> > > mark
> > > >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
> > stall
> > > due
> > > >>> to low participation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > >>> - pmc votes considered binding
> > > >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
> > our
> > > >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > > >>> calculation on subsequent votes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
> > time
> > > and
> > > >>> collaboration on this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ~Josh
> > > >>
> > > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://twitter.com/tjake
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 (b)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 non-binding
> >
> > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Link to doc:
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> > >>>
> > >>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> > votes
> > >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to
> the
> > >>> calculation."
> > >>>
> > >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
> > mark
> > >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of
> stall
> > due
> > >>> to low participation.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > >>> - pmc votes considered binding
> > >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
> > >>>
> > >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as
> our
> > >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> > >>> calculation on subsequent votes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the
> time
> > and
> > >>> collaboration on this.
> > >>>
> > >>> ~Josh
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
http://twitter.com/tjake
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 non-binding
>
> > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Link to doc:
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >>>
> >>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
> votes
> >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> >>> calculation."
> >>>
> >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water
> mark
> >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall
> due
> >>> to low participation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> >>> - pmc votes considered binding
> >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >>>
> >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> >>> calculation on subsequent votes.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time
> and
> >>> collaboration on this.
> >>>
> >>> ~Josh
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding
> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
>> +1
>>
>>>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Link to doc:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>>>
>>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
>>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
>>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
>>> calculation."
>>>
>>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
>>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
>>> to low participation.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>>> - pmc votes considered binding
>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>>
>>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
>>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
>>> calculation on subsequent votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
>>> collaboration on this.
>>>
>>> ~Josh
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Stefan Podkowinski <sp...@apache.org>.
+1
On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
> +1
>
>> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Link to doc:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>>
>> Change since previous cancelled vote:
>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
>> calculation."
>>
>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
>> to low participation.
>>
>>
>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>> - pmc votes considered binding
>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>
>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
>> calculation on subsequent votes.
>>
>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
>> collaboration on this.
>>
>> ~Josh
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Blake Eggleston <be...@apple.com.INVALID>.
+1
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:12 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Link to doc:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
> calculation."
>
> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark
> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due
> to low participation.
>
>
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our
> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark
> calculation on subsequent votes.
>
> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and
> collaboration on this.
>
> ~Josh
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Sam Tunnicliffe <sa...@beobal.com>.
+1
> On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:54, Sylvain Lebresne <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
> --
> Sylvain
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer <be...@datastax.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (mck@apache.org) wrote:
>>>
>>>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
>>>> - pmc votes considered binding
>>>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>>>> - committer and community votes considered advisory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Sylvain Lebresne <le...@gmail.com>.
+1
--
Sylvain
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer <be...@datastax.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (mck@apache.org) wrote:
> >
> > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > - pmc votes considered binding
> > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > > - committer and community votes considered advisory
> >
> >
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Benjamin Lerer <be...@datastax.com>.
+1
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (mck@apache.org) wrote:
>
> > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > - pmc votes considered binding
> > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > - committer and community votes considered advisory
>
>
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Marcus Eriksson <ma...@apache.org>.
+1
On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (mck@apache.org) wrote:
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
+1 (binding)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Posted by Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>.
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
+1 (binding)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org