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 19:11:23 GMT
Accoding to ASF bylaws a valid veto from a PMC member is binding.
Also, there is no procedure for throwing someone off the PMC.
So such a veto is binding for as long as the PMC member maintains their status.

Most companies appoint 3,5,7 person majority rule boards that are not involved
with day-to-day to allow consensus for day-to-day operations, but
provide a relief valve when consensus cannot be achieved over important
decisions.  The existence of a board induces compromise since an individual
veto is unlikely to hold up when brought to the board.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:45:48PM -0500, Corey Nolet wrote:
> Jeremy,
> 
> The PMC boards in ASF are required to look out for the long term health of
> the entire project. This is why the conversation of consensus can be a
> touchy one and a hard one to agree on. If a single PMC member vetos a code
> change, can that single member stop the code from being changed or could
> majority overrule the veto. It's going to be a complicated discussion.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jeremy,
> >
> > The PMC boards in ASF are re
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> 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