accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Define CTR in Bylaws
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:06:54 GMT
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>wrote:

> This is a proposal to adequately describe our Commit-Then-Review process in
> the bylaws.  I have made an initial suggestion below.  If we can agree on
> how to make this clarification, presumably this change would be made
> instead of removing the Code Change action from the bylaws (or would
> involve adding Code Change back in, if it happens that that change has
> already taken place).
>
>
> Index: bylaws.mdtext
> ==============================
> =====================================
> --- bylaws.mdtext    (revision 1584734)
> +++ bylaws.mdtext    (working copy)
> @@ -125,8 +125,15 @@
>
>  All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For
> technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding.
> Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community.
> For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>
> -Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please
> refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details.
> +See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html)
> for more details on the mechanics of voting.
>
> +<a name="CTR"></a>
> +## Commit Then Review (CTR)
> +
> +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the
> Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase
> without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be
> approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must
> a vote must take place on the code change.
> +
> +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the
> community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to
> seek approval before making a change if they so desire.
> +
>  ## Approvals
>
>  These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
> require different types of approvals.
> @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@
>  <tr><td>Majority Approval</td>
>      <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more
> binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td>
>  <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td>
> -    <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
> vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
> majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td>
> +    <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
> vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
> majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.  Lazy Approval
> can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>, as detailed
on the [lazy
> consensus page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/lazyConsensus.html)
> .</td>
>

If there is a commit and then a -1, is consensus or majority needed to
avert a revert?


>  </table>
>
>  ## Vetoes
> @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@
>
>  This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
> project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who
> have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of
> time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes
> should not be called at times when it is known that interested members of
> the project will be unavailable.
>
> +For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or
> stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval
> has no minimum length of time before the change can be made.
> +
>  <table>
>  <tr><th>Action</th>
>      <th>Description</th>
>

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