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 cjnolet@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOHP_tH-pMRmn8_p1P+gee8PdT+NyzL-gLG6kCaFzFZ=itTaMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2049051554.6130911.1417022931679.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
 <554485123.6136199.1417023220977.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
 <20141126180231.GA48703@ll.mit.edu>
 <CAFAMeYLu3q+mVs322O10Juf0bmippAY4QURw491W7agd5+_2UA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141126181815.GA48742@ll.mit.edu>
 <CAOHP_tH-pMRmn8_p1P+gee8PdT+NyzL-gLG6kCaFzFZ=itTaMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:45:48 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAOHP_tG6exUjQbe561FtjhJu7G3jFv6vu0zRTAxecHSLanXUgw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws Change - Majority Approval for Code Changes
To: "dev@accumulo.apache.org" <dev@accumulo.apache.org>, kepner@ll.mit.edu
Cc: Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ede2edbfd570508c7701a

--001a113ede2edbfd570508c7701a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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?
>> > >
>>
>
>

--001a113ede2edbfd570508c7701a--