accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Define CTR in Bylaws
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:47:59 GMT
That makes sense, Sean. So are you saying that you think it's best to
include no language whatsoever to enable restricting CtR vetoes during a
release?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I've spent some time dealing with hostiles in internet communities. Based
> on my experience, I would strongly recommend against gearing our bylaws
> towards guarding against actors we disagree with.
>
> 1) It presumes a conflict oriented community
>
> 2) It presumes we will have community members acting maliciously
>
> 3) It presumes any guard we come up with would ultimately work
>
> The fact of the matter is that if we are unfortunate enough to have
> someone who wants to be disruptive, they will find a way to be disruptive.
> Defining more elaborate rulesets to try to constrain them will ultimately
> only result in giving them more ammunition to work with.
>
> It is generally best to provide a reasonably loose set of community
> standards and then rely on the communities shared interest.
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:19 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> In the bylaw discussion, we had discussed the potential for someone to
>> reject a commit as a method to reject a release. Is this something that we
>> want to guard against with every release (if possible, we may need to
>> provide this ability in the bylaws) or should there be language in our
>> definitions to handle it?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As previously stated, I like this proposed change and would vote in
>> favor
>> > of it.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Billie Rinaldi <
>> billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > This is a proposal to adequately describe our Commit-Then-Review
>> process
>> > in
>> > > the bylaws.  I have made an initial suggestion below.  If we can
>> agree on
>> > > how to make this clarification, presumably this change would be made
>> > > instead of removing the Code Change action from the bylaws (or would
>> > > involve adding Code Change back in, if it happens that that change has
>> > > already taken place).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Index: bylaws.mdtext
>> > > ==============================
>> > > =====================================
>> > > --- bylaws.mdtext    (revision 1584734)
>> > > +++ bylaws.mdtext    (working copy)
>> > > @@ -125,8 +125,15 @@
>> > >
>> > >  All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For
>> > > technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding.
>> > > Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
>> > > understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo
>> > community.
>> > > For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>> > >
>> > > -Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase.
>> Please
>> > > refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details.
>> > > +See the [voting page](
>> http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html
>> > )
>> > > for more details on the mechanics of voting.
>> > >
>> > > +<a name="CTR"></a>
>> > > +## Commit Then Review (CTR)
>> > > +
>> > > +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under
>> > the
>> > > Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase
>> > > without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be
>> > > approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised
>> > must
>> > > a vote must take place on the code change.
>> > > +
>> > > +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the
>> > > community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer
>> to
>> > > seek approval before making a change if they so desire.
>> > > +
>> > >  ## Approvals
>> > >
>> > >  These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different
>> actions
>> > > require different types of approvals.
>> > > @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@
>> > >  <tr><td>Majority Approval</td>
>> > >      <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes
and
>> more
>> > > binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td>
>> > >  <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td>
>> > > -    <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless
a
>> -1
>> > > vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action,
>> either
>> > > majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td>
>> > > +    <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless
a
>> -1
>> > > vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action,
>> either
>> > > majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.  Lazy
>> Approval
>> > > can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>,
as detailed on the
>> > [lazy
>> > > consensus page](
>> http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/lazyConsensus.html
>> > )
>> > > .</td>
>> > >  </table>
>> > >
>> > >  ## Vetoes
>> > > @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@
>> > >
>> > >  This section describes the various actions which are undertaken
>> within
>> > the
>> > > project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those
>> > who
>> > > have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum
>> length
>> > of
>> > > time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes
>> > > should not be called at times when it is known that interested
>> members of
>> > > the project will be unavailable.
>> > >
>> > > +For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or
>> > > stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy
>> Approval
>> > > has no minimum length of time before the change can be made.
>> > > +
>> > >  <table>
>> > >  <tr><th>Action</th>
>> > >      <th>Description</th>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sean
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

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