lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:28:19 GMT

But remember the early days of this (or these) vote threads.  I recall some people saying
things like "I won't vote -1 since I don't want to veto the proposal, so I'll vote +|-0".
 I recall Doug being one of those people.  I don't think we heard back from Doug in subsequent
vote threads.  I think there were a few others on the fence.

I don't think I even voted because things were not clear and there was too much discussion
going on.  If I had to vote, I think I'd vote -1 mainly because I believe that what I think
the proposal's goal is can be achieved with the current structure.  I mentioned this in some
emails about a week ago, but nobody from +1 side reacted from what I recall.

I agree that in general in life it's impossible to get 100% of people to agree on something
and sometimes that means that a "largish minority" will have to live with a change they disagree
with, but here I feel that there are other ways of achieving the desired goal, so it's not
clear to me while those less drastic ways are not tried first.  I'll send a separate email
about those ways.


----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McCandless <>
> To:
> Sent: Sun, March 14, 2010 6:28:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Michael Busch <
> ymailto="" 
> href="">> wrote:
> This 
> whole thing feels like it's been pushed through, and while I'm
> not 
> against the updated proposal anymore (I voted +0), the bad
> feeling that 
> consensus wasn't really reached remains.

But: this vote is not expected 
> nor required to reach consensus.

We as a community are very used to only 
> pursuing things when they
reach [near-]consensus, simply because nearly every 
> biggish topic we
discuss must first reach consensus.  That's a very high 
> bar and it
blocks many good changes (look at how many times we've 
> broached
relaxing back compat policy...).

This change does not require 
> consensus.  It requires only a majority
to pass, which it has 
> achieved.  Yes, it's contentious, but a change
this big will always be 
> contentious, and this is why Apache requires
only majority for it to 
> pass.


View raw message