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 - Bylaw Change Changes
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:59:33 GMT
-1.

I am in favor of the bylaws as a living document, and consensus makes it
much more difficult to improve upon things if there is a large, but not
universal, support.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > So, I pseudo got an explanation for the second point in the CtR
> discussion,
> > so I'm going to withdraw that comment. However, I would still appreciate
> an
> > explanation for initial paragraph.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:32 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The majority of the reasoning I read in the bylaws thread justifying
> why
> > > bylaw changes should be majority and not consensus seemed to spiral
> > around
> > > "We don't want someone to be able to torpedo the vote". Can someone who
> > > held this opinion clarify why this is unacceptable for a bylaw change
> but
> > > acceptable for adopting a new code base, a new committer, a new pmc
> > member,
> > > or a new pmc chair? Primarily I was looking at these compared to bylaw
> > > changes when I made decided that bylaws should have the same level of
> > > approval. I feel that having these items as consensus by bylaws as
> > majority
> > > seems inconsistent.
> > >
> >
>
> N.b. I don't subscribe to the "we don't want someone to torpedo the vote"
> concern. (btw I would rephrase it as "we don't want casual or obstinate
> participants to deadlock the community.")
>
> One big difference between our bylaws and e.g. new committer, new pmc
> member, etc. is that after the vote passes we effectively give up control
> over that decision. As mentioned during the early work on the bylaws, only
> the ASF can remove people.
>
> For comparison, if there's a problem with the bylaws we can amend them
> ourselves with an additional vote.
>
> I happen to think that Majority Approval leads to better consensus building
> in well functioning communities. As Benson mentioned in his earlier email,
> it's important for the majority opinion to avoid running roughshod over the
> minority opinion. I think well functioning communities take this to heart
> and work to moderate their positions. By comparison, the nature of vetoes
> in Consensus Approval can lead people to squabbling over the legitimacy of
> a particular veto on technical grounds.
>
> At the end of the day, wether the vote is Majority or Consensus won't
> matter. Either of them can be abused should a segment of the community
> decide to and we'll be faced with very negative outcomes regardless. More
> important, to me, is that we not get too distracted in the process of
> deciding which to use.
>
> --
> Sean
>

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