accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws, vote 2
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 03:15:08 GMT
I don't know that the consensus vs. majority issue is fixable ex post
facto... by establishing these bylaws, we're basically binding
everybody in the community to a set of rules that is not in full
agreement (with majority approval). Binding those who disagree to the
rule that it is okay to proceed in spite of their disagreement seems a
bit authoritarian. I understand that the initial vote was following
the rules in the content of what was being voted on... and that makes
sense to me, and I agree with it. However, given my concerns about
binding dissenters to the same rules, with the sensible goal of using
the established rules for establishing those same rules, it seems to
me that full consensus is the only option that makes sense.

If there were no other outstanding issues, I would say that we could
move past this and change to consensus for modifying bylaws later...
but then we're going to revisit this same chicken/egg problem then,
but in a weird way: we'd be using majority voting to change to
consensus voting. If there's minority dissent at that point, it'd
still pass, but only by enacting a rule that would not have passed had
the newly applied rule been in place. It seems to me that full
consensus for initiating or modifying bylaws is the only sensible and
internally consistent mechanism for voting on the bylaws themselves.

The other issue, regarding clarification of wording around code
changes I think can be fixed later.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Could the -1 voters please explain what we can't fix with a follow on
> modification to the bylaws after this vote?
>
> Even on the matter of consensus vs majority approval for bylaw
> modifications, it is relatively easy for a follow on vote to make this
> change. It is no more difficult, say, than starting another vote after this
> one fails. Certainly, it is easier than the reverse transition would be.
>
> -Sean
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
View raw message