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: domain of dlmarion@comcast.net
 designates 76.96.59.243 as permitted sender)
From: <dlmarion@comcast.net>
To: <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
References: 
 <CAL5zq9btQNLkj3_Fsa_B5A1Og14JiC_5ciMQR0JtibzWTyOhQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL5zq9btQNLkj3_Fsa_B5A1Og14JiC_5ciMQR0JtibzWTyOhQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Majority voting without prior discussion
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 19:49:00 -0400
Message-ID: <011c01cf6985$c14f4bc0$43ede340$@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQGn0nHIJJcWiByB69ykMBlrGw5GLJuDY1qQ
Content-Language: en-us


 Your comments suggest that we need to tailor our model to follow the =
U.S. Senate. We will need a vote to end debate, so that we can vote on =
the measure. Can I filibuster? Just kidding, I wouldn't wish that on =
anyone.

 In all seriousness, I agree with your statements. I did the same thing =
with the blog thread, discuss, gather feedback, vote on text that was =
agreed upon. I went back and looked at the bylaws, which specify =
majority approval for ending a planned release and for an official =
release. What if they were consensus approval instead? Or, maybe a =
modification to the bylaws that states certain types of votes cannot be =
started without a discussion first.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher [mailto:ctubbsii@apache.org]=20
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: [DISCUSS] Majority voting without prior discussion

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
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii