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 Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:14:11 GMT
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> <opinion owner="bill_h" validity="dubious">
> Voting is not a substitute for deliberation, working as a group to generate
> agreement on decisions. First, those involved get together and hash out the
> details, and then at some point there is a vote on the outcome of those
> deliberations. (Unless you're Congress. ZING) Deliberation can take a long
> time ... a really long time. And it's not usually fun. At some point you
> just must call it.
>
> I don't like consensus approval for bylaw changes because someone could
> torpedo the vote and ruin the extensive work that went into getting there.
> It can actually discourage being involved in the deliberative process,
> because you could always just jump in at the vote time and veto, either for
> a well thought-out reason or just because. That's not fair to everyone who
> spent lots of time deliberating, compromising, exploring. (Harshness
> warning.) If you really had an issue, you should have brought it up before
> the vote was called so the community could spend proper time on it. Voting
> time isn't the appropriate time to discover fundamental issues with what
> you're voting on.
>

Going by the standards of a release vote, voting is actually the
appropriate time to discover fundamental issues.  That's kind of the whole
point of voting -- getting people to agree that there are no fundamental
issues with what you're voting on.  Finding valid, justifiable issues
should be welcome, as it results in a better product, whether the product
be a release or a community standard.

Given that we already have a couple of departures from ASF definitions in
our proposed bylaws, I think changing bylaws votes to Consensus Approval
would be more in line with our community practices.  In particular, I would
not feel good about the current vote passing, despite the fact that at the
moment it meets the criteria of Majority Approval.


>
> Also, in life, you don't always get what you want, and you don't always get
> it perfect the first time. Majority approval lets a group get something
> good enough, even with some problems and disagreement, started, or
> progressing. You can then begin a new round of deliberations, and vote on
> modifications to make it even better.
>
> Even if that modification is changing to consensus approval for bylaw
> changes.
> </opinion>
>
> If the XML tag wasn't signal enough, this is really my opinion. Part of
> this is working out, as a community, how we make decisions, so you should
> certainly form your own opinion and apply it to the current vote and future
> ones.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > bhavanki: can you expand on why you didn't like consensus approval for
> the
> > bylaws?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I dug into the dev archives for how the approval definition got set.
> > > Originally, from the ZooKeeper bylaws [1], modification required 2/3
> > > majority of ALL PMC members to +1 in order to pass. Billie didn't
> prefer
> > > that since it isn't an ASF-defined vote, and suggested consensus [2]
> > > (February 26).
> > >
> > > I didn't like that and preferred majority since (surprise!) I didn't
> like
> > > the idea of a veto. I preferred majority approval. [next in thread
> after
> > 2]
> > > Billie said she was neutral about that [second in thread after 2]. So,
> I
> > > set it to majority approval and said anyone can switch it to consensus,
> > > that would be fine [3] (March 4). No one changed it. So, here we are.
> > >
> > > The ASF voting guidelines [4] only discuss vetoes in the context of
> code
> > > modification. Its section on Procedural Votes is unhelpfully empty.
> > > However, at the top it says:
> > >
> > > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > unless
> > > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than
> > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless
> > of
> > > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too
> > > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is
> > typically
> > > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus for a
> > modifying
> > > factor.)
> > >
> > >
> > > When I called this vote, I decided that since the bylaws stated
> majority
> > > approval for modifications, the vote should be majority approval. There
> > was
> > > time for the community to deliberate about it before the vote, so
> absent
> > > any concern (that I recall seeing) it was the consistent choice. (In
> > fact,
> > > the first vote Mike called on March 10 was also majority approval.)
> > >
> > > That is my rationale for majority approval in this vote.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > [1] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAF1jEfDsHU_tG94TNs-=Mss65geDp2yvxEmpGR1KzQ5Gsb-+9A@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > > [3]
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAD-fFU+SX7aE0cMu5AC9xVR0OxwGeMm-V0O0rNpeQCnxuvAr0Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > > [4] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to change my vote to a -1,
> > > > based on the point that John just brought up.
> > > >
> > > > After some thought, I'm not sure it makes sense for people to be
> bound
> > > > by operating rules they did not agree to, especially for the initial
> > > > adoption. I think consensus approval makes more sense for modifying
> > > > the bylaws (and for the initial adoption of those bylaws) than does
> > > > majority approval.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > I'm also wondering if modifying bylaws, for now and in the future,
> > > should
> > > > > be consensus approval. Why is that scaled down to Majority?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, John Vines <jvines@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> -1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There is still no clarity on code change actions, which I think
> need
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > >> resolved before it should pass. It seems to be ambiguous,
> > > intentionally,
> > > > >> with the intent to revise later. If that's the case, it should
> just
> > be
> > > > >> removed until a more definitive guideline can be put in place.
Or
> > just
> > > > >> point at an existing CTR guideline.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Reminder to all: the bylaw vote ends at 10 AM EDT / 7 AM
PDT
> > tomorrow
> > > > >>> morning. Majority approval is required.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Bill
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> > +1
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Eric Newton <
> > eric.newton@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > > +1
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > Thank you all for working through something that
makes me
> want
> > to
> > > > go
> > > > >>> back
> > > > >>> > > to reading gigabytes of debug logs.
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > -Eric
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > 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
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >> ~John
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > // 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