accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws, vote 2
Date Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:31:00 GMT
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I do not like this. It sounds like I can veto a release by putting a veto
> on a commit, when we explicitly state that release votes are majority, not
> consensus.
>

I think that's technically true.  However, presumably that would get worked
out earlier as part of the release plan and planning.


>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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. :) )
> > >
> >
> > A change can be vetoed until the code is released. :)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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