accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws Change - Majority Approval for Code Changes
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:45:48 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message