accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2014 03:03:43 GMT
My sense from the conversations leading up to the vote:

1) I believe the list is comprehensive, in that no other voting actions are
contemplated. If we realize we need a new one, we can add it later.

2) We determined that a committer, by ASF rules, cannot truly lose
committer status [1], so no removal procedure is defined. Removal of a PMC
member is up to the ASF Board [2], so no procedure is defined.

3) I see no harm in adding a definition.

4) I think the "release plan" is the process for cutting a release, while
"product release" is for approving a specific RC as the release. For me, a
boilerplate release plan with customizations (who is the RM, what tests are
needed, time frame for freezes, etc.) would be nice to have laid out.

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term
[2] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Since I didn't technically vote, I guess I will now:
> I'm going to give it a -1, pending the resolution the following
> issues, and for an opportunity to correct the minor punctuation/typos.
>
> Specifically, I'd like these addressed before I change my vote:
> 1) clarification of whether the ACTIONS list is comprehensive
> 2) clarify reinstatement in the absence of a lack of removal procedures
> 3) codebase defined (or at least, Adoption of New Codebase clarified)
> 4) remove "release plan" as requiring a vote (or discuss), because
> while it is nice to coordinate release candidates through a release
> manager, I'm not sure it should be strictly necessary that release
> candidates be planned, or limited to that release manager.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> > ***Punctuation:
> >
> > PMC section:
> > "PMC from a Foundation perspective is" -> "PMC, from a Foundation
> > perspective, is"
> > "Secondly " -> "Secondly, "
> > "long term" -> "long-term"
> > "not coding - but to ensure" -> "not coding, but to ensure"
> > "Within the ASF we worry" -> "Within the ASF, we worry"
> >
> > VETOES section (comma):
> > "veto - merely that" -> "veto, merely that"
> >
> > ***Typos:
> >
> > APPROVALS section (typo):
> > "that -1 votes" -> "than -1 votes"
> >
> > ***Definitions:
> > I would like to see "codebase" defined. It's used throughout, but is
> > never clearly defined... particularly in the "Adoption of New
> > Codebase" section of the ACTIONS section.
> >
> > ***Other:
> > In the ACTIONS section, it describes reinstatement actions, but not
> > removal actions, so it's not clear what reinstatement means.
> >
> > It should also be made clear that the ACTIONS section is not a
> > comprehensive list of actions.
> >
> > I'm also not sure that the "Release plan" should require a vote, as
> > this seems covered by the "Product release" situation. The other
> > actions seem to imply a vote is required for that action. Are we
> > saying that planning to release requires a vote? If so, I can get on
> > board... I just don't remember that happening in the past, so this
> > isn't so much a formalization of our existing practices, but also
> > establishing a new one as well. And, in this case, I'm not sure it's
> > one we need.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
> wrote:
> >> I clarify my vote with it being the first +1 (I approve) :)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Was pointed out an error in the vote descriptions. They should be:
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for the
> Apache
> >>> Accumulo project"
> >>> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these bylaws, but accept
> them
> >>> for the Apache Accumulo project"
> >>> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not accept
> them
> >>> for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, everybody has a choice when they're voting. :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Please vote on the proposed bylaws, as available at
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1574615&view=markup
> >>> >
> >>> > A nicer to read version is available at
> >>> > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >>> >
> >>> > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 17 March 18:15 UTC.
> >>> >
> >>> > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
> document
> >>> > body will be replaced with "This is version 1 of the bylaws."
> >>> Additionally,
> >>> > and a link will be added to this document on the nav-bar on the left.
> >>> >
> >>> > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and
> >>> more
> >>> > +1 than -1's.
> >>> >
> >>> > Mike
> >>> >
> >>> > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for the
> >>> > Apache Accumulo project"
> >>> > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these bylaws, but
> accept
> >>> > them for the Apache Accumulo project"
> >>> > [ ] +1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not accept
> >>> them
> >>> > for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> // Bill Havanki
> >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> // 443.686.9283
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message