accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws Change - Majority Approval for Code Changes
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:18:15 GMT
To be effective, most boards need to be small (~5 people) and not involved with day-to-day.
Ideally, if someone says "let's bring this to the board for a decision" the
collective response should be "no, let's figure out a compromise".

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:26:09PM -0600, Mike Drob wrote:
> Jeremey, FWIW I believe that the PMC is supposed to be that board. In our
> case, it happens to also be the same population as the committers, because
> it was suggested that the overlap leads to a healthier community overall.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > -1 (I vote to keep current consensus approach)
> >
> > An alternative method for resolution would be to setup an
> > elected (or appointed) advisory board of a small number of folks whose
> > job it is to look out for the long-term health and strategy of Accumulo.
> > This board could then
> > be appealed to on the rare occassions when consensus over important
> > long-term issues
> > cannot be achieved.  Just the presence of such a board often has the effect
> > encouraging productive compromise amongst participants.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:33:40PM +0000, dlmarion@comcast.net wrote:
> > >
> > > It was suggested in the ACCUMULO-3176 thread that code changes should be
> > majority approval instead of consensus approval. I'd like to explore this
> > idea as it might keep the voting email threads less verbose and leave the
> > discussion and consensus building to the comments in JIRA. Thoughts?
> >

Mime
View raw message