accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Majority voting without prior discussion
Date Wed, 07 May 2014 20:22:02 GMT
I definitely agree with #1.  Still pondering #2.

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Christopher <> wrote:

> Devs,
> As something that came out of the vote thread about EOL'ing 1.4, I was
> thinking:
> The purpose of a majority vote seems to be when we've already
> discussed and planned, and we just need things to come down to a final
> vote. Things like releasing, for example, occur after discussions,
> planning, and aren't a surprise in any way. It seems to me that there
> are two main points I want to make:
> 1) Prior discussion/planning should be a prerequisite for things which
> are majority vote.
> 2) The default for any ambiguous or arbitrary vote item that does not
> fall into a predetermined type, should require consensus.
> The problem with majority votes without discussion is that there may
> be serious concerns a minority of persons voting have about something,
> that could be resolved with compromise.... where there is plenty of
> room for gathering consensus. Coming together as a community to move
> forward with a mutually agreed upon path should always be preferred
> where possible. In some cases, differences are irreconcilable and
> action just needs to be taken to move forward (releasing, for
> instance) on a majority decision, but even here, there is up front
> discussion about those differences (code development, release
> planning, etc.) prior to such a vote.
> Binding actions to a majority vote that has insufficient prior
> discussion, especially when there is no mechanism to extend a vote, or
> sane way to alter the contents of the majority vote while in progress,
> leads to actions that don't have the consensus of the community, even
> in circumstances where consensus was possible to achieve.
> I think our bylaws should be updated to reflect the two ideas above.
> I'm not sure the exact wording needed *(please submit proposals in
> response to this), but I think it should declare that any voting that
> does not clearly fall into a vote category explicitly enumerated, or
> if there's any doubt, should default to consensus. Before we had
> bylaws, this appeared to be the precedent... as we often took great
> care to respond to any objections, delaying, canceling, or extending
> the vote to do so. We should continue to operate with that same sense
> of community in future decisions as well, and I think consensus voting
> whenever possible is the way to do that.
> It was also discussed that it may be helpful to enumerate end of life
> procedures in the bylaws as well. I'm not sure this is as important of
> an issue if we agree that the default should be consensus... but I'm
> willing to entertain that discussion in this thread as well.
> Thanks for your time and input.
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II

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