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 20:29:00 GMT
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
>

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