Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mdrob@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6Lycex3oXmi050VaFr1ad0r_6oURsfhC6KhM4Xs4zpB-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADczPYQmuWuF74bGsCKPO3EvQ_nDJEkRWat_PA84JHTM-tBdYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <533ECD3F.4030800@gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9aMGCrntHN_Ym+93p+EaRNSH=8kvZ3KSwBh1+nCmt0EJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD-fFU+S-w8y2Pe59KumEUJv=nNf1FDWMNU2-SrrbqaLvXYzfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYTsUF363t_ND0mNj-a6vuhf=2+=NYY8_gMhFqoHvJZYDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6Lycex3oXmi050VaFr1ad0r_6oURsfhC6KhM4Xs4zpB-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 10:56:06 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAFAMeYLDAmJgGs6qzn4ydQYM_M4Z0etPTeqL5vQWp+P2VYryfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149c2988b155804f63b3ccc

--089e0149c2988b155804f63b3ccc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

-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
>

--089e0149c2988b155804f63b3ccc--