lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:55:06 GMT
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 17:04, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<> wrote:
> Hi Bernd,
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:29, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi Yonik,
>>> IMO, this vote has not passed. A bullet of this proposal proposes code
>>> modifications and this is subject to VETO per Apache guidelines:
>> Vetos only relate to some specific svn commit.
>> You cannot veto proposals, releases, strategic decisions and anything else.
>> (This is intended to be a generic comment, I'm not commenting on the
>> vote(s) in this thread itself.)
> Actually code modifications are those performed or proposed.

Well, this project is about code, so nearly any discussion will result
in code changes in some way.

> At least that's
> my interpretation, but I'm not an ASF lawyer :)

A technical veto is a very powerful tool, so there's a strict set of
conditions to be met.
Clearly, for me, this is a strategic decision, but...

> Let's ask the board though
> -- they can help.

... hey, try it. It can't be bad.

> Regardless, even if that point is moot, the sheer amount of emails,
> discussion, amendments, etc., to these 3 sets of proposals and their
> evolution is enough for me to also believe that this was too nebulous of a
> vote to even know what you're voting on.

+1. This is something I agree with. In my personal opinion, a vote
should only ratify a consensus reached - or - cut a decision after a
long running discussion where all arguments have been exchanged
multiple times where no consensus could be reached. It would have been
much better to first have a [DISCUSS] thread, followed up with a
[PROPOSAL], ratified by a [VOTE] for such a fundamental change in the
project's organisation.

> So, I'd like to ask the board about
> that, and plan to.

There you go.

BTW, I think we will notice that the PMC chair will mention this
discussion in his upcoming report.


View raw message