accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Bylaw Change Changes
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:41:23 GMT
That leaves me conflicted. I have a substantial dislike for doing things a
way solely because that's how they have been.

I can see the value in keeping things similar for those who interact, but
how much is that? I'm not sure how much confusion there will be should
these actions happen if we're providing the clarity on the vote type at the
start of the vote, which they can reference against our bylaws when they
see it's a different type then what they expected.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:

>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:18 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I can accept those reasons for new persons in charge. What about vetoed
>> code and adding a new codebase? I can see the giving up control as a reason
>> to escalate things to Consensus from Majority, but I'm not seeing the
>> reason for these 2.
>>
>>
>>
> As Benson mentioned, vetoes on code are an artifact of how Apache has
> grown up. With code changes it's presumed there is a readily defined
> standard of "correctness" and vetoes are supposed to be limited to
> violations of such correctness.
>
> I happen to disagree with this, and would prefer that those things also
> fail over to Majority. However, I prefer keeping in line with ASF norms
> more so, because it makes it easier for those already familiar with other
> ASF groups to interact with us.
>
>  -Sean
>

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