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 - Action changes
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:56:06 GMT
-1, I would need replacement text to establish how we deal with disagreeing
with a commit.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every
> single
> > code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had
> > been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving
> > others questioning whether it should not be there.
> >
> > Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws
> > anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw
> > changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided
> it's
> > best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until
> > something a more sound can be put in place.
> >
> >
>
> John,
>
> I respectfully disagree. AFAICT from the previous thread, everyone agreed
> with you that the bylaw was not meant to imply that commits had to be up
> for review. I, for one, would not support a rogue committer attempting to
> leverage that line to claim we need to be RtC. I'm reasonably certain the
> rest of the community would do the same.
>
> While we had consensus that _something_ needed to be done with this part of
> the bylaws, I don't think we had reached it on what the appropriate change
> was. It isn't productive for us to approach the bylaws as a coercive
> bludgeon that we must guard against abuse. We're a community first and
> foremost and we need to approach things with assumed good intent.
>
> --
> Sean
>

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