You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> on 2014/07/28 16:55:48 UTC
[VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Hello folks,
In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
Please review and cast your vote.
The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
outstanding errata.
- Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
-1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
- Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
instead of "majority approval" as necessary
- Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
- Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
- Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
- Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
- Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
- Added example about using email TAGS
- Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
- Minor fixes for wording and case
Thank you,
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
NOTE: We a voting on the two links shared above. The original doc has
been deleted (though was word for word identical).
On 28 July 2014 17:21, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> New doc is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302833
>
> Diff is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=2&selectedPageVersions=1
>
> I messed up the copying and pasting of the old doc, and there are big
> sections of blue. This is just the rich text stuff getting confused.
> Those blue sections indicate "formatting changes", but no such changes
> were made.
>
>
> On 28 July 2014 17:08, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Please stand by. Recreating the page so y'all can see a proper diff.
>>
>> On 28 July 2014 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>
>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>
>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>
>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>
>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>> outstanding errata.
>>>
>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>
>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>
>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>
>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>
>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>
>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>
>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>
>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>
>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>
>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
+1.
The diff itself is not very clear but that’s a tool limitation. It appears to accurately reflect the changes that Noah describes and hence I am voting for it.
Future votes, however, should be purely on a readable diff once we have the tooling to provide such.
B.
On 28 Jul 2014, at 16:21, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> New doc is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302833
>
> Diff is here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=2&selectedPageVersions=1
>
> I messed up the copying and pasting of the old doc, and there are big
> sections of blue. This is just the rich text stuff getting confused.
> Those blue sections indicate "formatting changes", but no such changes
> were made.
>
>
> On 28 July 2014 17:08, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Please stand by. Recreating the page so y'all can see a proper diff.
>>
>> On 28 July 2014 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>
>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>
>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>
>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>
>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>> outstanding errata.
>>>
>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>
>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>
>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>
>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>
>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>
>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>
>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>
>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>
>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>
>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
New doc is here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302833
Diff is here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=2&selectedPageVersions=1
I messed up the copying and pasting of the old doc, and there are big
sections of blue. This is just the rich text stuff getting confused.
Those blue sections indicate "formatting changes", but no such changes
were made.
On 28 July 2014 17:08, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please stand by. Recreating the page so y'all can see a proper diff.
>
> On 28 July 2014 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>
>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>
>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>
>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>
>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> outstanding errata.
>>
>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>
>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>
>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>
>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>
>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>
>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>
>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>
>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>
>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>
>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Please stand by. Recreating the page so y'all can see a proper diff.
On 28 July 2014 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>
> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>
> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>
> Please review and cast your vote.
>
> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> outstanding errata.
>
> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>
> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>
> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>
> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>
> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>
> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>
> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>
> - Added example about using email TAGS
>
> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>
> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Agreed, this edit means that -1 votes have full veto power on code
changes only, as defined in the bylaws.
In any other context, a -1 is not a veto. A -1 vote can still block a
decision (or what would be the point of voting). But a vote will need
a minimum of two people voting -1 for a vote to be blocked. That is,
the project has to demonstrate that 2/3rds of the people participating
in the decision making process agree. If it can do that, the decision
proceeds.
On 30 July 2014 21:32, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> We already have a notion of Lazy 2/3 Majority in the bylaws as passed
> for many different vote types. As the -1 veto process is proposed to be
> dropped outside of justifiable technical blocks on commits, there would
> then be no more veto _override_ process possible for electing a chair or
> new PMC member, or modifying official documents.
>
> The intent is therefore to pull forward the scrutiny that the veto
> override vote would have brought into the initial vote for these specific
> vote types. That means using a lazy 2/3 majority vote rather than
> permitting the continued use of blocking vetos - which is problematic
> and not desired. As an example, your -1 vote on this change is a blocker
> given the current bylaws, and that is not what the PMC intended when
> drafting the bylaws.
>
> Noah, please correct me if I'm wrong in my summary.
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:02:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>
> On Jul 30, 2014 7:35 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2014 7:20 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello folks,
>> > >
>> > > In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> > > clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>> > >
>> > > Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>> > >
>> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>> > >
>> > > This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>> > >
>> > > Please review and cast your vote.
>> > >
>> > > The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> > > in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> > > outstanding errata.
>> > >
>> > > - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> > > -1 votes on non-technicaldecisions. Confirmed with other major
>> > > contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>> > >
>> > > - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> > > instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>> > >
>> > > - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>> > >
>> > > - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> > > consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> > > decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>> > >
>> > > - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>> > >
>> > > - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>> > >
>> > > - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>> > >
>> > > - Added example about using email TAGS
>> > >
>> > > - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>> > >
>> > > - Minor fixes for wording and case
>> > >
>> > > Thank you,
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Noah Slater
>> > >https://twitter.com/nslater
>> >
>> > why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?
>> >
>>
>> hrm since discussing in a vote is already too late, I'm actually -1 on
> that change. I think the 2/3 lazy thing can be harmful and will makes the
> project more easy to be manipulated for the good or not. I don't see any
> reason indeed for this 2/3 except introducing more politic than it's needed.
>>
>> > - benoit
>
> note that I'm happy to revisit my vote if someone can clarify the
> intentions behind this change (only the -1 was explained) I'm not on irc
> these days so sorry if it has been already done on a public channel.
>
> - benoit
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Actually, given the vote is 72h from when it was first posted, this
email came in before the 72 hour deadline, so your vote is officially
changed to -0.5. Thank you :)
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org, "Joan Touzet" <wo...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:00:50 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> We already have a notion of Lazy 2/3 Majority in the bylaws as passed
> for many different vote types. As the -1 veto process is proposed to be
> dropped outside of justifiable technical blocks on commits, there would
> then be no more veto _override_ process possible for electing a chair or
> new PMC member, or modifying official documents.
>
> The intent is therefore to pull forward the scrutiny that the veto
> override vote would have brought into the initial vote for these specific
> vote types. That means using a lazy 2/3 majority vote rather than
> permitting the continued use of blocking vetos - which is problematic
> and not desired. As an example, your -1 vote on this change is a blocker
> given the current bylaws, and that is not what the PMC intended when
> drafting the bylaws.
>
I don;t see any discussion *on the PMC mailing-list* about it.
Anyway thanks for the explanation, I understand now and while I disagree
with the 2/3 lazy majority (i couldn't vote in the short limited time
given) I agree that it should not reintroduce the veto removed in lazy
majority. I'm -0.5 then.
- benoit
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> We already have a notion of Lazy 2/3 Majority in the bylaws as passed
> for many different vote types. As the -1 veto process is proposed to be
> dropped outside of justifiable technical blocks on commits, there would
> then be no more veto _override_ process possible for electing a chair or
> new PMC member, or modifying official documents.
>
> The intent is therefore to pull forward the scrutiny that the veto
> override vote would have brought into the initial vote for these specific
> vote types. That means using a lazy 2/3 majority vote rather than
> permitting the continued use of blocking vetos - which is problematic
> and not desired. As an example, your -1 vote on this change is a blocker
> given the current bylaws, and that is not what the PMC intended when
> drafting the bylaws.
>
I don;t see any discussion *on the PMC mailing-list* about it.
Anyway thanks for the explanation, I understand now and while I disagree
with the 2/3 lazy majority (i couldn't vote in the short limited time
given) I agree that it should not reintroduce the veto removed in lazy
majority. I'm -0.5 then.
- benoit
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Benoit, please withdraw your -1 vote. This change is very important
and brings the bylaws into line with how the majority of the PMC think
-1 votes ought to work.
On 30 July 2014 08:02, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2014 7:35 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2014 7:20 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hello folks,
>> > >
>> > > In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> > > clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>> > >
>> > > Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>> > >
>> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>> > >
>> > > This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>> > >
>> > > Please review and cast your vote.
>> > >
>> > > The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> > > in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> > > outstanding errata.
>> > >
>> > > - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> > > -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>> > > contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>> > >
>> > > - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> > > instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>> > >
>> > > - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>> > >
>> > > - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> > > consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> > > decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>> > >
>> > > - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>> > >
>> > > - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>> > >
>> > > - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>> > >
>> > > - Added example about using email TAGS
>> > >
>> > > - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>> > >
>> > > - Minor fixes for wording and case
>> > >
>> > > Thank you,
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Noah Slater
>> > >https://twitter.com/nslater
>> >
>> > why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?
>> >
>>
>> hrm since discussing in a vote is already too late, I'm actually -1 on
> that change. I think the 2/3 lazy thing can be harmful and will makes the
> project more easy to be manipulated for the good or not. I don't see any
> reason indeed for this 2/3 except introducing more politic than it's needed.
>>
>> > - benoit
>
> note that I'm happy to revisit my vote if someone can clarify the
> intentions behind this change (only the -1 was explained) I'm not on irc
> these days so sorry if it has been already done on a public channel.
>
> - benoit
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Hi Benoit,
We already have a notion of Lazy 2/3 Majority in the bylaws as passed
for many different vote types. As the -1 veto process is proposed to be
dropped outside of justifiable technical blocks on commits, there would
then be no more veto _override_ process possible for electing a chair or
new PMC member, or modifying official documents.
The intent is therefore to pull forward the scrutiny that the veto
override vote would have brought into the initial vote for these specific
vote types. That means using a lazy 2/3 majority vote rather than
permitting the continued use of blocking vetos - which is problematic
and not desired. As an example, your -1 vote on this change is a blocker
given the current bylaws, and that is not what the PMC intended when
drafting the bylaws.
Noah, please correct me if I'm wrong in my summary.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:02:00 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
On Jul 30, 2014 7:35 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2014 7:20 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello folks,
> > >
> > > In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> > > clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
> > >
> > > Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
> > >
> > >
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
> > >
> > > This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
> > >
> > > Please review and cast your vote.
> > >
> > > The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> > > in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> > > outstanding errata.
> > >
> > > - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> > > -1 votes on non-technicaldecisions. Confirmed with other major
> > > contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
> > >
> > > - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> > > instead of "majority approval" as necessary
> > >
> > > - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
> > >
> > > - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> > > consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> > > decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
> > >
> > > - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
> > >
> > > - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
> > >
> > > - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
> > >
> > > - Added example about using email TAGS
> > >
> > > - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
> > >
> > > - Minor fixes for wording and case
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Noah Slater
> > >https://twitter.com/nslater
> >
> > why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?
> >
>
> hrm since discussing in a vote is already too late, I'm actually -1 on
that change. I think the 2/3 lazy thing can be harmful and will makes the
project more easy to be manipulated for the good or not. I don't see any
reason indeed for this 2/3 except introducing more politic than it's needed.
>
> > - benoit
note that I'm happy to revisit my vote if someone can clarify the
intentions behind this change (only the -1 was explained) I'm not on irc
these days so sorry if it has been already done on a public channel.
- benoit
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 30, 2014 7:35 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2014 7:20 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello folks,
> > >
> > > In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> > > clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
> > >
> > > Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
> > >
> > >
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
> > >
> > > This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
> > >
> > > Please review and cast your vote.
> > >
> > > The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> > > in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> > > outstanding errata.
> > >
> > > - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> > > -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> > > contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
> > >
> > > - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> > > instead of "majority approval" as necessary
> > >
> > > - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
> > >
> > > - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> > > consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> > > decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
> > >
> > > - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
> > >
> > > - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
> > >
> > > - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
> > >
> > > - Added example about using email TAGS
> > >
> > > - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
> > >
> > > - Minor fixes for wording and case
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Noah Slater
> > >https://twitter.com/nslater
> >
> > why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?
> >
>
> hrm since discussing in a vote is already too late, I'm actually -1 on
that change. I think the 2/3 lazy thing can be harmful and will makes the
project more easy to be manipulated for the good or not. I don't see any
reason indeed for this 2/3 except introducing more politic than it's needed.
>
> > - benoit
note that I'm happy to revisit my vote if someone can clarify the
intentions behind this change (only the -1 was explained) I'm not on irc
these days so sorry if it has been already done on a public channel.
- benoit
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 30, 2014 7:20 AM, "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> > clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
> >
> > Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
> >
> >
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
> >
> > This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
> >
> > Please review and cast your vote.
> >
> > The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> > in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> > outstanding errata.
> >
> > - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> > -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> > contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
> >
> > - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> > instead of "majority approval" as necessary
> >
> > - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
> >
> > - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> > consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> > decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
> >
> > - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
> >
> > - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
> >
> > - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
> >
> > - Added example about using email TAGS
> >
> > - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
> >
> > - Minor fixes for wording and case
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --
> > Noah Slater
> > https://twitter.com/nslater
>
> why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?
>
hrm since discussing in a vote is already too late, I'm actually -1 on that
change. I think the 2/3 lazy thing can be harmful and will makes the
project more easy to be manipulated for the good or not. I don't see any
reason indeed for this 2/3 except introducing more politic than it's needed.
> - benoit
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 28, 2014 4:55 PM, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>
> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>
> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>
> Please review and cast your vote.
>
> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> outstanding errata.
>
> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>
> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>
> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>
> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>
> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>
> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>
> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>
> - Added example about using email TAGS
>
> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>
> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
why this 2/3 rule? what is the reason to not have simple "majority" ?
- benoit
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks, Noah!
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>
> +1
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
> > On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> > clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
> >
> > Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
> >
> > This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
> >
> > Please review and cast your vote.
> >
> > The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> > in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> > outstanding errata.
> >
> > - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> > -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> > contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
> >
> > - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> > instead of "majority approval" as necessary
> >
> > - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
> >
> > - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> > consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> > decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
> >
> > - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
> >
> > - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
> >
> > - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
> >
> > - Added example about using email TAGS
> >
> > - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
> >
> > - Minor fixes for wording and case
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --
> > Noah Slater
> > https://twitter.com/nslater
>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Just need a +1 from Jason and Joan now before anyone else votes. Heh. :)
On 28 July 2014 20:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to that clarification.
>>
>>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the
>>> errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the
>>> addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll
>>> need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
>>>
>>> That would be changing:
>>>
>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>>> model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote
>>> outside of RTC."
>>>
>>> To this:
>>>
>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>>> model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a
>>> vote outside of RTC."
>>>
>>>> On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>>>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>>>> so promptly!
>>>>
>>>> -Joan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>>
>>>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>>>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>>>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>>>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>>>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>>>> outside of RTC.
>>>>
>>>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
And this email was supposed to go into the BigCouch vote thread. Sorry!
Jan
--
> On 29.07.2014, at 11:54, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> A small clarification on my +1: I went through all the patches from a mostly IP perspective and they seem all to be good. I have a few notes that I shared with Bob so far that can be addressed post import. I wouldn't mind a second pair of eyes looking at IP things, though :)
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 28.07.2014, at 20:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to that clarification.
>>>
>>>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the
>>>> errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the
>>>> addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll
>>>> need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
>>>>
>>>> That would be changing:
>>>>
>>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>>>> model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote
>>>> outside of RTC."
>>>>
>>>> To this:
>>>>
>>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>>>> model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a
>>>> vote outside of RTC."
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>>>>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>>>>> so promptly!
>>>>>
>>>>> -Joan
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
>>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>>>
>>>>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>>>>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>>>>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>>>>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>>>>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>>>>> outside of RTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
A small clarification on my +1: I went through all the patches from a mostly IP perspective and they seem all to be good. I have a few notes that I shared with Bob so far that can be addressed post import. I wouldn't mind a second pair of eyes looking at IP things, though :)
Cheers
Jan
--
> On 28.07.2014, at 20:15, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to that clarification.
>>
>>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the
>>> errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the
>>> addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll
>>> need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
>>>
>>> That would be changing:
>>>
>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>>> model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote
>>> outside of RTC."
>>>
>>> To this:
>>>
>>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>>> model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a
>>> vote outside of RTC."
>>>
>>>> On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>>>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>>>> so promptly!
>>>>
>>>> -Joan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>>
>>>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>>>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>>>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>>>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>>>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>>>> outside of RTC.
>>>>
>>>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
+1
Cheers
Jan
--
> On 28.07.2014, at 20:14, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 to that clarification.
>
>> On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the
>> errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the
>> addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll
>> need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
>>
>> That would be changing:
>>
>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>> model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote
>> outside of RTC."
>>
>> To this:
>>
>> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
>> model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a
>> vote outside of RTC."
>>
>>> On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>>> so promptly!
>>>
>>> -Joan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>
>>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>>
>>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>>> outside of RTC.
>>>
>>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>>
>>>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>>
>>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>>
>>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>>
>>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>>
>>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>>
>>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>>
>>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>>
>>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>>
>>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
+1 to that clarification.
On 28 Jul 2014, at 19:07, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the
> errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the
> addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll
> need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
>
> That would be changing:
>
> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
> model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote
> outside of RTC."
>
> To this:
>
> "A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
> model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a
> vote outside of RTC."
>
> On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>> so promptly!
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>
>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>
>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>> outside of RTC.
>>
>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>
>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>
>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>
>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>
>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>
>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>
>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>
>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>
>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>
>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>
>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>
>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>
>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>
>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>
>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>
>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Joan, for clarification, I've not made the edit. I put it in the
errata. If everyone on this thread is happy with me making the
addition of "single" as previously explained, I will do so. But I'll
need everyone who's already voted to say they're happy with that.
That would be changing:
"A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
model. This is because a -1 vote never has the power to block a vote
outside of RTC."
To this:
"A -1 vote is never called a veto except when using the RTC approval
model. This is because a single -1 vote never has the power to block a
vote outside of RTC."
On 28 July 2014 19:28, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
> so promptly!
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>
> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>
> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
> outside of RTC.
>
> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>
> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>
> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>
>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>
>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>
>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>
>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>> outstanding errata.
>>>
>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>
>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>
>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>
>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>
>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>
>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>
>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>
>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>
>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>
>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Paul, thanks for voting! Could you note that you're voting on the
edited version? Thanks! :)
On 30 July 2014 06:26, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>>> > On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:28, Noah Slater wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks folks.
>>> >>
>>> >> I added it here:
>>> >>
>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
>>> >>
>>> >> We are now voting on the following changeset:
>>> >>
>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=1
>>> >>
>>> >> (Apologies for the in-situ edit!)
>>> >>
>>> >> People who vote after this email: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU UNDERSTAND AN
>>> >> EDIT WAS MADE. Thanks. It's important to be rigorous here. :)
>>>
>>
>> +1 again, editing duly noted.
>>
>> A+
>> Dave
>>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>> > On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:28, Noah Slater wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks folks.
>> >>
>> >> I added it here:
>> >>
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
>> >>
>> >> We are now voting on the following changeset:
>> >>
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=1
>> >>
>> >> (Apologies for the in-situ edit!)
>> >>
>> >> People who vote after this email: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU UNDERSTAND AN
>> >> EDIT WAS MADE. Thanks. It's important to be rigorous here. :)
>>
>
> +1 again, editing duly noted.
>
> A+
> Dave
>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>.
> > On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:28, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks folks.
> >>
> >> I added it here:
> >>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
> >>
> >> We are now voting on the following changeset:
> >>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=1
> >>
> >> (Apologies for the in-situ edit!)
> >>
> >> People who vote after this email: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU UNDERSTAND AN
> >> EDIT WAS MADE. Thanks. It's important to be rigorous here. :)
>
+1 again, editing duly noted.
A+
Dave
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
+1
--
,,,^..^,,,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Robert Samuel Newson
<rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:28, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks folks.
>>
>> I added it here:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
>>
>> We are now voting on the following changeset:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=1
>>
>> (Apologies for the in-situ edit!)
>>
>> People who vote after this email: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU UNDERSTAND AN
>> EDIT WAS MADE. Thanks. It's important to be rigorous here. :)
>>
>> On 28 July 2014 21:16, Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> เมื่อ วันอังคารที่ 29 กรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2014, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>
>>> เขียนว่า:
>>>
>>>> Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here.
>>>>
>>>> I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed
>>>> below is the intent of the rule.
>>>>
>>>> -Joan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>>
>>>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>>>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>>>> so promptly!
>>>>
>>>> -Joan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>>
>>>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>>>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>>>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>>>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>>>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>>>> outside of RTC.
>>>>
>>>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>>>
>>>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noah Slater
>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
+1
On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:28, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks folks.
>
> I added it here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
>
> We are now voting on the following changeset:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=1
>
> (Apologies for the in-situ edit!)
>
> People who vote after this email: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU UNDERSTAND AN
> EDIT WAS MADE. Thanks. It's important to be rigorous here. :)
>
> On 28 July 2014 21:16, Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> เมื่อ วันอังคารที่ 29 กรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2014, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>
>> เขียนว่า:
>>
>>> Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here.
>>>
>>> I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed
>>> below is the intent of the rule.
>>>
>>> -Joan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>
>>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>>> so promptly!
>>>
>>> -Joan
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>>
>>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>>
>>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>>> outside of RTC.
>>>
>>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>>
>>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>>>>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>>>>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>>>>> outstanding errata.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>>>>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>>>>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>>>>
>>>>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>>>>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>>>>
>>>>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>>>>
>>>>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>>>>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>>>>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>>>>
>>>>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>>>>
>>>>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>>>>
>>>>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>>>>
>>>>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>>>>
>>>>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Noah Slater
>>>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noah Slater
>>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Thanks folks.
I added it here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=2
We are now voting on the following changeset:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=44302833&selectedPageVersions=3&selectedPageVersions=1
(Apologies for the in-situ edit!)
People who vote after this email: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU UNDERSTAND AN
EDIT WAS MADE. Thanks. It's important to be rigorous here. :)
On 28 July 2014 21:16, Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> เมื่อ วันอังคารที่ 29 กรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2014, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>
> เขียนว่า:
>
>> Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here.
>>
>> I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed
>> below is the intent of the rule.
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>
>> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
>> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
>> so promptly!
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>>
>> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
>> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
>> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>>
>> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
>> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
>> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
>> outside of RTC.
>>
>> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>>
>> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>>
>> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Best
>> > Jan
>> > --
>> >
>> >> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello folks,
>> >>
>> >> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> >> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>> >>
>> >> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>> >>
>> >> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>> >>
>> >> Please review and cast your vote.
>> >>
>> >> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> >> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> >> outstanding errata.
>> >>
>> >> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> >> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>> >> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>> >>
>> >> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> >> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>> >>
>> >> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>> >>
>> >> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> >> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> >> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>> >>
>> >> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>> >>
>> >> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>> >>
>> >> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>> >>
>> >> - Added example about using email TAGS
>> >>
>> >> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>> >>
>> >> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Noah Slater
>> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
เมื่อ วันอังคารที่ 29 กรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2014, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>
เขียนว่า:
> Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here.
>
> I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed
> below is the intent of the rule.
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>
> With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
> getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
> so promptly!
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <javascript:;>
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
>
> Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
> really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
> vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
>
> I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
> are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
> clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
> outside of RTC.
>
> If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
>
> In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
>
> On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> >> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello folks,
> >>
> >> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> >> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
> >>
> >> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
> >>
> >> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
> >>
> >> Please review and cast your vote.
> >>
> >> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> >> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> >> outstanding errata.
> >>
> >> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> >> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> >> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
> >>
> >> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> >> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
> >>
> >> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
> >>
> >> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> >> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> >> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
> >>
> >> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
> >>
> >> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
> >>
> >> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
> >>
> >> - Added example about using email TAGS
> >>
> >> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
> >>
> >> - Minor fixes for wording and case
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Noah Slater
> >> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Noah asked me to clarify what I mean here.
I vote +1, with the understanding that the clarification he has listed
below is the intent of the rule.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Touzet" <wo...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:28:26 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
so promptly!
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
outside of RTC.
If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>
> +1
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>
>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>
>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>
>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>
>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> outstanding errata.
>>
>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>
>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>
>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>
>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>
>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>
>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>
>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>
>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>
>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>
>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
With this modification, I concur. +1 on these changes, and thanks for
getting this and the minor errata from others merged into a single vote
so promptly!
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:58:49 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
outside of RTC.
If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>
> +1
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>
>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>
>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>
>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>
>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> outstanding errata.
>>
>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>
>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>
>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>
>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>
>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>
>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>
>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>
>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>
>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>
>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Dang. Where I say that a -1 never has the power to block a vote, I
really mean a *single* -1 vote. Of course, -1 votes can still block a
vote if you have enough of them. The point is that they're not vetos
I don't think this is enough for me to abort the vote, as the rules
are quite clear in the approval models section. This only serves as a
clarification of the statement that a -1 vote is not *called* a veto
outside of RTC.
If you think this is important enough to restart the vote, I shall do so.
In the mean time, I have created an Errata document:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Errata
On 28 July 2014 18:25, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
>
> +1
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
>> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>>
>> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>>
>> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>>
>> Please review and cast your vote.
>>
>> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
>> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
>> outstanding errata.
>>
>> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
>> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
>> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>>
>> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
>> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>>
>> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>>
>> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
>> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
>> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>>
>> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>>
>> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>>
>> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>>
>> - Added example about using email TAGS
>>
>> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>>
>> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [VOTE] Amend CouchDB bylaws
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
Sensible. Thanks for catching this!
+1
Best
Jan
--
> On 28.07.2014, at 16:55, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> In a discussion between myself, Joan, and Bob on IRC today, it became
> clear that there are some major errors that need fixing ASAP.
>
> Here's my candidate doc that we are voting on:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44302814
>
> This vote uses majority approval model and expires in 72 hours.
>
> Please review and cast your vote.
>
> The page history is messy, but here is a list of the changes I made,
> in order of importance. The last half are a wrap-up of all the
> outstanding errata.
>
> - Dropped "majority approval" approval model, as this allowed blocking
> -1 votes on non-technical decisions. Confirmed with other major
> contributors to the bylaws that this did not match our intentions
>
> - Updated decision table to use "lazy majority" or "lazy 2/3 majority"
> instead of "majority approval" as necessary
>
> - Clarified that "veto" only applies to -1 votes using RTC
>
> - Change our most preferred method of decision making to "Lazy
> consensus or RTC" per Bob's feedback that we actually have two primary
> decision making models, one for code and one for everything else
>
> - Dropped a redundant sentence about the Chair not being a leader
>
> - Changed "RTC Approval & Vetos" to "RTC and Vetos" so anchors work
>
> - Fixed internal anchors, and added a few additional ones
>
> - Added example about using email TAGS
>
> - Tightened up wording about the PMC delegating responsibility
>
> - Minor fixes for wording and case
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater