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 Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:15:28 GMT
First, +1 vote

As part of getting us a (literally) passable first set of bylaws as a
foundation, at one point I "refactored" the commit and review details out
to an as-yet-to-be-written standard. So, what is in the bylaws should be
interpreted as permissive.

My interpretations: A "code change" can certainly be a commit - "a change
made to a codebase of a project". Lazy approval is based on that commit.
The minimum voting period (here and for release plan) applies to both vote
phases separately, so *n* days for lazy approval, *n* days for consensus if
needed. (I imagine lazy approval has some period since getting a veto one
month later shouldn't be possible, for example; but if that doesn't make
sense, never mind. :) )

I have all sorts of ideas about the commit and review details, and I bet
others do too, which is why I like having that split off from getting some
version 1 bylaws in place. As the policies evolve, we still have the option
to modify the bylaws as needed.

Bill






On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:40 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> The only two places we have a lazy falling back to another type of vote is
> code change and release plan. For release plan, I interpret the minimum
> length to apply to either type of vote. However, you're stating that this
> is not the case for a code change. So there is ambiguity about minimum
> length applying to lazy approvals that needs to be cleared up here.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > The only time there is more than one type of approval (not vote) required
> > is when the first one is lazy consensus, which doesn't actually require a
> > vote.  Maybe we just need some elaboration on how to CTR which is
> > referenced from this doc ("Please refer to the Accumulo commit and review
> > standard for details")?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> If that is the case, then I think we should provide distinction about
> the
> >> time lengths between the various types of votes, for the cases where
> there
> >> are multiple possible votes involved.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
> billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The way I'm reading actions, all code changes must be presented at
> least
> >>>> one day before they can be committed. Is that intended this way?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't reading it that way.  Code change is lazy approval, and "An
> >>> action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 vote is
> >>> received."  Not requiring a vote supersedes the minimum vote length.
>  In
> >>> the event of falling back to consensus approval for code change, the
> >>> minimum vote length is 1 day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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

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