Race condition on that last one Benedict. What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how many +1's are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, simple majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes?
For example: - 33 pmc members - 16 roll call - 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, passes - If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with the lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a vote should reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from "simple majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", but hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing up. We could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which might further encourage participation. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it stands. > I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that" > revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. yesterday; one > day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition. > > @Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> - want to revise the wiki article > and call a new vote? > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. >> >> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, >> so in that case 8 +1's. >> >> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple majority >> > (I am) and calling a new vote? >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there >> > are >> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I >> don't >> > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as >> > > formulated, either, for the record. >> > > >> > > Yeah, I didn't think you were serious about it being a problem, just >> > wanted >> > > to check. >> > > >> > > I'm changing my vote to a -1, in favor of a simple majority as the low >> > > watermark in vote participation (not approval). >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < >> > bened...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out that there >> > are >> > > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an impediment. I >> > don't >> > > > think it necessarily indicates bad intent to use voting rules as >> > > > formulated, either, for the record. >> > > > >> > > > I do think redefining the roll call low watermark would be a good >> > thing to >> > > > do though. It was a mistake to bring this to a vote without >> discussing >> > > > it. Sorry for my part in forgetting the comment hadn't been >> responded >> > to, >> > > > and also for the initial issue with formulation - it stemmed from >> > poorly >> > > > specifying the use of super-majority in the private@ indicative >> votes >> > > > (which didn't disambiguate between the two success metrics), and >> > avoiding >> > > > disincentives to voting (requiring only a quorum of voters, rather >> > than a >> > > > quorum of positive voters, encourages abstention until the quorum is >> > > > reached). The intention was always to get clarity from the >> community >> > > > before a formal vote. >> > > > >> > > > I don't personally mind if we do that as a modification once this >> vote >> > > > passes, or if we scrub the vote and try again. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:35, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On the document I raised this as an issue, and proposed >> > lowering the >> > > > "low watermark" to a simple majority of the electorate - since >> if >> > you >> > > > have >> > > > both a simple majority of the "active electorate", and a >> > > > super-majority of >> > > > all voters, I think you can consider that a strong consensus. >> > > > >> > > > Agree here. I think a simple majority of the roll call + a >> super >> > > > majority >> > > > of votes sounds far more reasonable. >> > > > >> > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is >> likely to >> > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the >> roll >> > > > call, >> > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a >> problem. In >> > > > fact it >> > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to >> > reach >> > > > the >> > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the >> roll >> > > > call. >> > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple to >> > > > administer. >> > > > >> > > > Is this something you're concerned about, or just musing over? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < >> > > > bened...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Sorry, I've been busy so not paid as close attention as I >> would >> > like >> > > > after >> > > > > initial contributions to the formulation. On the document I >> > raised >> > > > this as >> > > > > an issue, and proposed lowering the "low watermark" to a >> simple >> > > > majority of >> > > > > the electorate - since if you have both a simple majority of >> the >> > > > "active >> > > > > electorate", and a super-majority of all voters, I think you >> can >> > > > consider >> > > > > that a strong consensus. >> > > > > >> > > > > However it's worth noting that the active electorate is >> likely to >> > > > > undercount, since some people won't nominate themselves in the >> > roll >> > > > call, >> > > > > but will still vote. So it might not in practice be a >> problem. >> > In >> > > > fact it >> > > > > can be gamed by people who want to pass a motion that fails to >> > reach >> > > > the >> > > > > low watermark all collaborating to not count their vote at the >> > roll >> > > > call. >> > > > > The only real advantage of the roll call is that it's simple >> to >> > > > administer. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 17/06/2020, 17:12, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Looking at the doc again, I'm a bit concerned about this: >> > > > > >> > > > > > PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an >> > email >> > > > to dev@ >> > > > > w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on >> > the >> > > > project >> > > > > and >> > > > > plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. >> This >> > is >> > > > > strictly an >> > > > > exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts >> ability >> > to >> > > > > participate >> > > > > during this time window. A super-majority of this count >> > becomes >> > > > the >> > > > > low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a >> motion, >> > > > with new >> > > > > PMC >> > > > > members added to the calculation. >> > > > > >> > > > > I imagine we'll see a lot of participation from folks in >> roll >> > > > call, and >> > > > > less when it comes to votes. It's very easy to say we'll >> do >> > > > something, >> > > > > it's another to follow through. A glance at any active >> > community >> > > > > member's >> > > > > review board (including my own) will confirm that. >> > > > > >> > > > > Just to provide a quick example with some rough numbers - >> it >> > > > doesn't >> > > > > seem >> > > > > unreasonable to me that we'll get a roll call of 15-20 >> votes. >> > > > On the >> > > > > low >> > > > > end of that, we'd need 10 votes to pass anything and on >> the >> > high >> > > > end, >> > > > > 14. >> > > > > On the high end a vote with 13 +1 and one -1 would fail. >> > > > > >> > > > > Just to be clear, I am 100% in favor of increased >> > participation >> > > > and a >> > > > > higher bar on voting, but I'd like to ensure we don't set >> the >> > > > bar so >> > > > > high >> > > > > we can't get anything done. >> > > > > >> > > > > Anyone else share this sentiment? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell >> > > > > <dcapw...@apple.com.invalid> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 nb >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña < >> > > > > a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 nb >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne < >> > > > > lebre...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> +1 (binding) >> > > > > > >> -- >> > > > > > >> Sylvain >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer < >> > > > > > >> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> >> > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> +1 (binding) >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson < >> > > > > marc...@apache.org> >> > > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>>> +1 >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe ( >> > > > s...@beobal.com) >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >>>>> +1 (binding) >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> +1 nb >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 (binding) >> > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie >> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here: >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I propose the following: >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at >> > end of >> > > > day >> > > > > > >> 6/23/20) >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we >> > > > didn't get >> > > > > on >> > > > > > >> gdoc >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2. pmc votes are considered binding >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 3. committer and community votes are considered >> > > > advisory / >> > > > > > >>>> non-binding >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Any objections / revisions to the above? >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks! >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ~Josh >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > >> > >> >
