accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws, vote 2
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:43:51 GMT
Changing my vote to +0.

While I think the bylaws are fine as is, and I think future issues can be
fixed through follow on amendments, there are clearly issues that have not
been resolved. I would like to see strong adoption for the first pass, and
then majority for future issues.


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > As an aside, this is not encouraged in our current release process.
> >
> > The test practices for a release take longer than the voting period for
> an
> > RC. This directly implies that the fundamental issues must have been
> worked
> > out prior to a call to vote.
> >
>
> Our disagreement here might largely be due to differing definitions of
> "fundamental issues."  Also, I think you might be blocking out what
> happened between the first 1.5.0 release candidate and the last?  =)
>
>
> >
> > I've been fine with this interpretation, largely because it lines up with
> > Apache guidelines around votes: do the consensus building work up front.
> If
> > we're going to use a release vote as a time to do primary vetting, then
> we
> > should probably change our RC vote window.
> >
>

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