hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed bylaws for Hadoop
Date Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:39:51 GMT

On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Tom White wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:

>>> I suggest we make this stronger.
>>> By way of comparison, the recently enacted bylaws for Pig
>>> (http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html) have consensus, for example.
>> Consensus is equivalent to making the PMC a permanent appointment.
>> Discussions would be more civil and more likely to offer compromise-
>> we would actually work toward consensus- if intransigence and
>> hostility had consequences. Removing people is a last resort. Moving
>> the barrier closer doesn't make it more likely, but it aligns
>> incentives so rational people will reign in their more intemperate
>> comments and, instead, find ways to make progress.
>> Many projects require supermajorities or even 3/4 majorities. It's
>> sufficiently damning if more than half the PMC thinks an individual is
>> so destructive that less damage would be done by ejecting them, in my
>> opinion, but again: this is not a facility we should use, or have to
>> use. Throwing someone out is an expensive failure for the project, and
>> an conspicuous failure of its governance and community. Personally, I
>> don't care if it's a majority or a supermajority, but consensus is a
>> fig leaf.
> Fair point. For a large PMC, that's probably true. This matter was
> discussed on the Pig list, and there was a range of opinion there:
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/jk35b2tZCuy&subj=RE+DISCUSS+Apache+Pig+bylaws.
> Personally, I think a supermajority strikes the right balance.
> Tom

Yup, all good points Chris. I, too, agree that supermajority strikes a good balance.


View raw message