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, vote 2
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:13:41 GMT
I dug into the dev archives for how the approval definition got set.
Originally, from the ZooKeeper bylaws [1], modification required 2/3
majority of ALL PMC members to +1 in order to pass. Billie didn't prefer
that since it isn't an ASF-defined vote, and suggested consensus [2]
(February 26).

I didn't like that and preferred majority since (surprise!) I didn't like
the idea of a veto. I preferred majority approval. [next in thread after 2]
Billie said she was neutral about that [second in thread after 2]. So, I
set it to majority approval and said anyone can switch it to consensus,
that would be fine [3] (March 4). No one changed it. So, here we are.

The ASF voting guidelines [4] only discuss vetoes in the context of code
modification. Its section on Procedural Votes is unhelpfully empty.
However, at the top it says:

Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of
the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically
not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus for a modifying
factor.)


When I called this vote, I decided that since the bylaws stated majority
approval for modifications, the vote should be majority approval. There was
time for the community to deliberate about it before the vote, so absent
any concern (that I recall seeing) it was the consistent choice. (In fact,
the first vote Mike called on March 10 was also majority approval.)

That is my rationale for majority approval in this vote.

Bill

[1] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAF1jEfDsHU_tG94TNs-=Mss65geDp2yvxEmpGR1KzQ5Gsb-+9A@mail.gmail.com%3E
[3]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAD-fFU+SX7aE0cMu5AC9xVR0OxwGeMm-V0O0rNpeQCnxuvAr0Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
[4] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to change my vote to a -1,
> based on the point that John just brought up.
>
> After some thought, I'm not sure it makes sense for people to be bound
> by operating rules they did not agree to, especially for the initial
> adoption. I think consensus approval makes more sense for modifying
> the bylaws (and for the initial adoption of those bylaws) than does
> majority approval.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm also wondering if modifying bylaws, for now and in the future, should
> > be consensus approval. Why is that scaled down to Majority?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, John Vines <jvines@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -1
> >>
> >> There is still no clarity on code change actions, which I think need to
> be
> >> resolved before it should pass. It seems to be ambiguous, intentionally,
> >> with the intent to revise later. If that's the case, it should just be
> >> removed until a more definitive guideline can be put in place. Or just
> >> point at an existing CTR guideline.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Reminder to all: the bylaw vote ends at 10 AM EDT / 7 AM PDT tomorrow
> >>> morning. Majority approval is required.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > +1
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Eric Newton <eric.newton@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > +1
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thank you all for working through something that makes me want
to
> go
> >>> back
> >>> > > to reading gigabytes of debug logs.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -Eric
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie@apache.org>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Hey everyone!  We only have 3 more days to vote on Accumulo's
> bylaws
> >>> > ...
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Bill Havanki <
> >>> > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >>> > > > >wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Please vote on the proposed bylaws, as available at
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > *
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1582476&view=markup
> >>> > > > > <
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1582476&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 4 April 2014
14:00
> 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,"
and
> the
> >>> > > > statement
> >>> > > > > defining the document as a draft will be stricken.
> Additionally, a
> >>> > link
> >>> > > > to
> >>> > > > > the document will be added to the navigation menu.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least
3 +1
> votes
> >>> and
> >>> > > > more
> >>> > > > > +1
> >>> > > > > than -1's.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept
them
> for
> >>> the
> >>> > > > > Apache Accumulo
> >>> > > > > project."
> >>> > > > > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these
proposed
> >>> 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..."
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Thank you.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > --
> >>> > > > > // Bill Havanki
> >>> > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >>> > > > > // 443.686.9283
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> // Bill Havanki
> >>> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >>> // 443.686.9283
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> ~John
> >>
>



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

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