search

container-storage-interface / community

CSI Community Content (common to all CSI org repositories)
Apache License 2.0
16 stars 5 forks source link

Add voting rules to the governance doc. #7

Closed jieyu closed 6 years ago

jieyu commented 6 years ago

The initial draft for the voting rules.

jdef commented 6 years ago

Lgtm

On Nov 24, 2017 12:22 PM, "Jie Yu" notifications@github.com wrote:

The initial draft for the voting rules.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/container-storage-interface/community/pull/7 Commit Summary

  • Fix a few typos in the governance doc.
  • Add voting rules to the governance doc.

File Changes

Patch Links:

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/container-storage-interface/community/pull/7, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACPVLBkvKYzxmHGSrN40vGPADuKJwb6Pks5s5vtigaJpZM4QqD5A .

jieyu commented 6 years ago

ping @cpuguy83, @saad-ali

jieyu commented 6 years ago

@cpuguy83 updated. PTAL

saad-ali commented 6 years ago

Given that a single -1 can veto an entire motion, it seems like we need to set a fixed amount of time that a motion can be voted on.

I was thinking about this some more: a single veto could potentially prevent progress indefinitely on the project.

I spoke with Tim, and he said that on the Kubernetes steering committee they do the following:

Mainly I want to prevent a veto from indefinitely blocking the project. Thoughts on adopting this model?

"quorum" should be defined with real numbers. Is this just a simple majority? 2/3 super majority? Absolute/full consensus?

With my proposal above I would say supermajority (2/3+ to override veto).

What happens when there is no -1 but we don't have "quorum"?

With my revised proposal above, "quoroum" is not required unless there is -1 (a veto).

jieyu commented 6 years ago

@saad-ali your proposal sounds good to me. The veto rule was originated from the Apache voting procedure. The goal is to drive general consensus within PMC. The tradeoff is that it might block a motion indefinitely. I am OK with your proposal. I think forward progress is more important for a spec like this.

jdef commented 6 years ago

I'm fine with the changes proposed by Saad

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Jie Yu notifications@github.com wrote:

@saad-ali https://github.com/saad-ali your proposal sounds good to me. The veto rule was originated from the Apache voting procedure. The goal is to drive general consensus within PMC. The tradeoff is that it might block a motion indefinitely. I am OK with your proposal. I think forward progress is more important for a spec like this.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/container-storage-interface/community/pull/7#issuecomment-351208165, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACPVLFfX0DTrNWv8aTkdFox27ebmQfbKks5s_va3gaJpZM4QqD5A .

cpuguy83 commented 6 years ago

SGTM

jieyu commented 6 years ago

Updated according to comments. PTAL @saad-ali @julian-hj @cpuguy83 @jdef