Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADczPYSm1TaRJoaWr7WzHMPzsPxE1VTHfnmT9GhkTrwYyMCH5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADczPYTvmhXM7rNFuy0uTLb454rb_Xvizgdw4AnB4Ly0Q3C+VA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOiJXP4g9tw3FHoJr4hNToGpD0nquZsOcGq2iFYiEF05NS-JmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9ZtsyeTrsik+ny+augE9-TKTXVoM5B8Aynz8QxP9dni6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOHP_tF92jpgf6Dq1nO4FaTAE5e5Er8Fgr7pBzrzkJobZuZ0Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD-fFUJBJPzWVVk8KP=zyvgOT36J2nmDCiYUdk4Rv0JQj_Y_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+9VSKe0oMzDcQcNpUCRVXOyxPxw2kh-FOYLyrD5c9vjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYSm1TaRJoaWr7WzHMPzsPxE1VTHfnmT9GhkTrwYyMCH5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:39:42 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAD-fFUK93M00GY38S6u7VV43+C8uZuDZM5wFVX5aeqat-7x7xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Bylaw Change Changes
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>, vines <vines@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11330a74529dd304f63a2be4

--001a11330a74529dd304f63a2be4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

You're quoting me, but in the interest of community harmony I yield to
another who may like to clarify.


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.
>
> Furthermore, by having the bylaw changes at a lower level of agreement, it
> provides a work around for a bare minimum majority to change the bylaws to
> allow these actions to occur with said bare minimum majority.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > I don't think there's been sufficient discussion on this. Also, I agree
> > with Mike back in the previous thread. The norm is for Apache to use
> > Majority Vote for procedural changes and I'd prefer we follow suite. I
> have
> > faith that our community can build consensus in a reasonable amount of
> > time, but sometimes you just need to take a reckoning and move on.
> >
> >
> > -Sean
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > My opinion on this is overly well known.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:33 AM, David Medinets
> > > > > <david.medinets@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:21 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> This is a proposal to change the Bylaw Change action in the
> bylaws
> > > > from
> > > > > >> Majority Approval to Consensus Approval. This is being requested
> > > > because
> > > > > >> Bylaw changes are a major change to the project and all
> discussion
> > > > > should
> > > > > >> be able to be had without  a borderline majority being able to
> > force
> > > > > things
> > > > > >> through.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be changed
> > > > > >> Modifying BylawsModifying this document.Majority approvalActive
> > PMC
> > > > > >> members7
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Modifying BylawsModifying this document.Consensus approvalActive
> > PMC
> > > > > >> members
> > > > > >> 7
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The current bylaws are visible at
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:20
> UTC.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
> > > > document
> > > > > >> body
> > > > > >> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," ( or
> > "This
> > > is
> > > > > >> version 3 of the bylaws," if the vote to change Code Changes
> > passes)
> > > > and
> > > > > >> the aforementioned line will be changed from Majority Approval
> to
> > > > > Consensus
> > > > > >> Approval.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1
> votes
> > > and
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> +1
> > > > > >> than -1's.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept
> > them
> > > > for
> > > > > >> the Apache Accumulo project."
> > > > > >> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed
> bylaw
> > > > > changes,
> > > > > >> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> > > > > >> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes 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

--001a11330a74529dd304f63a2be4--