+1 nb
From: Jon Haddad
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Yes, this is my understanding as well.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> I personally think
Yes, this is my understanding as well.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes
> decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant
> third. Since this question doesn't really invali
I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes decision,
as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant third. Since this
question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I think for forward progress
it's better to simply address the vote floor, but just my 2
For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty
reasonable one and am in favor of it.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> 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
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
I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I intended.
I intended that there would be a minimum of 11 votes _in favour_, not simply 11
votes. The reason being that otherwise, if you oppose something, you are
incentivised _not to vote_ which is a disincentive to participat
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
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 t
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 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'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 be
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 watermar
> 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
I think we need to assume positive intent here. If someone says they will
participate then we need to assume they are true to their word. While the
concerns are not un-founded, I think the doc as is gives a good starting point
for trying this out without being too complicated. If this turns o
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 "act
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 qu
+1 nb
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña
> wrote:
>
> +1 nb
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>> --
>> Sylvain
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer <
>> benjamin.le...@datastax.com>
>> wrote
+1 nb
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne 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
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
+1 (binding)
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote:
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > > On 17 Jun 2020,
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson 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 Se
+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 McKenz
+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.a
> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:36, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote:
>
> If these tickets are the only blockers I agree with Scott's assessment. We
> could even disable the v5 protocol if we're keen to get it out of the door
> today, and only enable it once 15299 lands. I don't personally think the
>
Just to clarify the status of CASSANDRA-14825
The latest version of the patch has been reviewed by Dinesh and I. I am
fixing the last details (mainly the documentation). So I expect the patch
to be ready to commit, today or tomorrow.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
If these tickets are the only blockers I agree with Scott's assessment. We
could even disable the v5 protocol if we're keen to get it out of the door
today, and only enable it once 15299 lands. I don't personally think the other
two tickets would be impossible to land during a beta either, eve
+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 pro
25 matches
Mail list logo
