accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <busbey+li...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:51:30 GMT
The list being compulsory makes sense to me, but artificially restricting
what the PMC or committers can vote on by requiring a meta-vote first is
not in line with my expectations around Apache projects in general.

The rule, as I'm used to it, is to seek consensus first in all matters and
then use a vote if needed to clear up ambiguity. A bylaws vote for anything
we happen to want to vote on seems excessive.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I was under the impression that the list was both compulsory and
> exhaustive, and if we need to add/remove actions later then we can bring up
> a vote on it.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > nit: can we move it to governance/bylaws.html?
> >
> > I update the blurb after the voting actions list to make clear that the
> > list isn't exhaustive (which I think Christopher had brought up
> > previously).
> >
> > I also published the current staged changes.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and
> > adding a
> > > missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair"
> voting
> > > action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring
> > consensus
> > > approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I
> set
> > > the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new
> PMC
> > > member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
> > >
> > > [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in
> CMS
> > > or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
> > >
> > > I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> > > >
> > > > -Sean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sean-
> > > > >
> > > > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the
> current
> > > > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found
> time
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > it yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed
earlier
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New
PMC
> > > > Member".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to
do
> with
> > > svn.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make
edits. I do
> > not
> > > > > expect
> > > > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include
a diff
> to
> > > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > >> > vote.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post
a new
> version?
> > > > Email
> > > > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor
(Bill H?)
> > handles
> > > > > >> > > implementation?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki
<
> > > > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement
actions.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she
cannot be denied
> > > > getting
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after
going idle /
> > > > emeritus.
> > > > > So,
> > > > > >> > no
> > > > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare
that she is
> back
> > > via
> > > > > >> email
> > > > > >> > > (the
> > > > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher
<
> > > > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to
have
> "reinstatement"
> > > even
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal
is not a
> > possible
> > > > > thing,
> > > > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release
plan being in the
> > > > initial
> > > > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what
that means, so I'm
> > > glad
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill
Havanki <
> > > > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws
to account for
> > feedback
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > arose
> > > > > >> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my
updates. There was a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point
out unintentional
> > > omissions,
> > > > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that
are somewhat likely
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > >> there.
> > > > > >> > > :)
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and
typos noticed by
> > > Christopher.
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may
be added as needed to
> the
> > > > list
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action
to lazy consensus,
> > > > falling
> > > > > >> back
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation
(re-plan) action,
> > > > majority
> > > > > >> > > approval
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between
release plan and
> > product
> > > > > release
> > > > > >> > > > actions
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's
definition
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC
removal actions are
> > > > > >> intentionally
> > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with
content definition
> > > based
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > Mike's
> > > > > >> > > > > list
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates
in release plans are
> > > > > estimates
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release
guidelines, as we have
> a
> > > page
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > those
> > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering,
just for now. As
> > with
> > > > > other
> > > > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile
later addition.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing.
I'm hopeful that
> we
> > > can
> > > > > call
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > second
> > > > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > [1]
> > http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera
Govt Solutions
> > > > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> // 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