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 Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:59:52 GMT
This vote passed +4 to -3 19 days ago, but was missed. I am updating the
website now to make these changes.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> 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