accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws, vote 2
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 04:03:38 GMT
Personally, while not voting -1, I still don't quite agree that pushing 
the first draft of a document to a successful vote that has dissent from 
more than one PMC member.

To my knowledge, there is no rush to release such a document, so it 
doesn't make sense to me to release such a document to just turn around 
and make an amendment to it. Let's get it right the first time and not 
set a precedent for ignoring the concerns. Community comes first.

Presently, my biggest concern is that there is still some ambiguity 
about the lazy approval of code changes that John initial brought up. I 
haven't thought enough about the majority versus consensus rules, but my 
first impression is, that with good faith, this isn't a big concern that 
needs to be hashed up front.

Lastly, I want to applaud Bill for stepping up to spearhead this. The 
frustration with this process, akin to that which we face for every 
release, is unavoidable. No, the community as a whole does not always 
(ever?) read everything up front, and that is the difficulty in working 
as a group. However, I do not feel like just because someone missed the 
"preferred" time window to voice a concern means that those concerns are 
no longer valid at the given moment. Just as we wouldn't treat an issue 
found in an RC during the last hour of the vote differently than an 
issue found before the RC was made (everyone would much rather the 
latter always be the case), discussion that was raised late in the game 
is just as important as discussion raised before the approval vote.

On 4/3/14, 8:14 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Could the -1 voters please explain what we can't fix with a follow on
> modification to the bylaws after this vote?
> Even on the matter of consensus vs majority approval for bylaw
> modifications, it is relatively easy for a follow on vote to make this
> change. It is no more difficult, say, than starting another vote after this
> one fails. Certainly, it is easier than the reverse transition would be.
> -Sean
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Mike Drob <> wrote:
>> Changing my vote to +0.
>> While I think the bylaws are fine as is, and I think future issues can be
>> fixed through follow on amendments, there are clearly issues that have not
>> been resolved. I would like to see strong adoption for the first pass, and
>> then majority for future issues.
>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
>>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Sean Busbey <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Havanki <
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Going by the standards of a release vote, voting is actually the
>>>>> appropriate time to discover fundamental issues.  That's kind of the
>>>> whole
>>>>> point of voting -- getting people to agree that there are no
>>> fundamental
>>>>> issues with what you're voting on.  Finding valid, justifiable issues
>>>>> should be welcome, as it results in a better product, whether the
>>> product
>>>>> be a release or a community standard.
>>>> As an aside, this is not encouraged in our current release process.
>>>> The test practices for a release take longer than the voting period for
>>> an
>>>> RC. This directly implies that the fundamental issues must have been
>>> worked
>>>> out prior to a call to vote.
>>> Our disagreement here might largely be due to differing definitions of
>>> "fundamental issues."  Also, I think you might be blocking out what
>>> happened between the first 1.5.0 release candidate and the last?  =)
>>>> I've been fine with this interpretation, largely because it lines up
>> with
>>>> Apache guidelines around votes: do the consensus building work up
>> front.
>>> If
>>>> we're going to use a release vote as a time to do primary vetting, then
>>> we
>>>> should probably change our RC vote window.

View raw message