accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Bylaw Change Changes
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:18:14 GMT
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.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Sean Busbey <> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Vines <> wrote:
>> So, I pseudo got an explanation for the second point in the CtR
>> discussion,
>> so I'm going to withdraw that comment. However, I would still appreciate
>> an
>> explanation for initial paragraph.
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:32 PM, John Vines <> wrote:
>> > The majority of the reasoning I read in the bylaws thread justifying why
>> > bylaw changes should be majority and not consensus seemed to spiral
>> around
>> > "We don't want someone to be able to torpedo the vote". Can someone who
>> > held this opinion clarify why this is unacceptable for a bylaw change
>> but
>> > acceptable for adopting a new code base, a new committer, a new pmc
>> member,
>> > or a new pmc chair? Primarily I was looking at these compared to bylaw
>> > changes when I made decided that bylaws should have the same level of
>> > approval. I feel that having these items as consensus by bylaws as
>> majority
>> > seems inconsistent.
>> >
> N.b. I don't subscribe to the "we don't want someone to torpedo the vote"
> concern. (btw I would rephrase it as "we don't want casual or obstinate
> participants to deadlock the community.")
> One big difference between our bylaws and e.g. new committer, new pmc
> member, etc. is that after the vote passes we effectively give up control
> over that decision. As mentioned during the early work on the bylaws, only
> the ASF can remove people.
> For comparison, if there's a problem with the bylaws we can amend them
> ourselves with an additional vote.
> I happen to think that Majority Approval leads to better consensus
> building in well functioning communities. As Benson mentioned in his
> earlier email, it's important for the majority opinion to avoid running
> roughshod over the minority opinion. I think well functioning communities
> take this to heart and work to moderate their positions. By comparison, the
> nature of vetoes in Consensus Approval can lead people to squabbling over
> the legitimacy of a particular veto on technical grounds.
> At the end of the day, wether the vote is Majority or Consensus won't
> matter. Either of them can be abused should a segment of the community
> decide to and we'll be faced with very negative outcomes regardless. More
> important, to me, is that we not get too distracted in the process of
> deciding which to use.
> --
> Sean

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