You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by John Vines <vi...@apache.org> on 2014/04/04 17:04:26 UTC
[VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
until these are clarified, should be removed.
Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
The current bylaws are visibile at
http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document body
will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
aforementioned line will be removed.
This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more
+1
than -1's.
[ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
for the Apache
Accumulo project."
[ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw changes,
but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
[ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
Thank you.
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>.
Except of course my links were bad, I meant to link to
http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/lazyConsensus.html instead of
voting.html.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Let's spend a minute evaluating whether we can easily fix the issues in
> the bylaws, rather than just putting it off. For example, would the
> following changes address the problem?
>
> Index: bylaws.mdtext
> ===================================================================
> --- bylaws.mdtext (revision 1584734)
> +++ bylaws.mdtext (working copy)
> @@ -125,8 +125,15 @@
>
> All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For
> technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding.
> Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community.
> For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>
> -Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please
> refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details.
> +See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html)
> for more details on the mechanics of voting.
>
> +<a name="CTR"></a>
> +## Commit Then Review (CTR)
> +
> +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the
> Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase
> without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be
> approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must
> a vote must take place on the code change.
> +
> +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the
> community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to
> seek approval before making a change if they so desire.
> +
> ## Approvals
>
> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
> require different types of approvals.
> @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@
> <tr><td>Majority Approval</td>
> <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more
> binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td>
> <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td>
> - <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
> vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
> majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td>
> + <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
> vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
> majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained. Lazy Approval
> can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>, as detailed on the
> [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html).</td>
> </table>
>
> ## Vetoes
> @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@
>
> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
> the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those
> who have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum
> length of time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general,
> votes should not be called at times when it is known that interested
> members of the project will be unavailable.
>
> +For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or
> stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval
> has no minimum length of time before the change can be made.
> +
> <table>
> <tr><th>Action</th>
> <th>Description</th>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
>> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
>> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
>> until these are clarified, should be removed.
>>
>> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
>>
>> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
>> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
>> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
>>
>>
>> The current bylaws are visibile at
>>
>> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>
>> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
>>
>> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document
>> body
>> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
>> aforementioned line will be removed.
>>
>> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more
>> +1
>> than -1's.
>>
>> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
>> for the Apache
>> Accumulo project."
>> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
>> changes,
>> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
>> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
>> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
-1 on the Vote as phrased.
While I am a big supporter of the Apache notion that community is more
important than code, our bylaws need to state _something_ about our policy
around code changes.
I like Billie's suggested move to define CtR. It does a great job of
removing the ambiguity people were concerned about in describing CtR
without calling it CtR. I would +1 a vote on that diff.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Let's spend a minute evaluating whether we can easily fix the issues in the
> bylaws, rather than just putting it off. For example, would the following
> changes address the problem?
>
> Index: bylaws.mdtext
> ===================================================================
> --- bylaws.mdtext (revision 1584734)
> +++ bylaws.mdtext (working copy)
> @@ -125,8 +125,15 @@
>
> All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For
> technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding.
> Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community.
> For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>
> -Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please
> refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details.
> +See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html)
> for more details on the mechanics of voting.
>
> +<a name="CTR"></a>
> +## Commit Then Review (CTR)
> +
> +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the
> Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase
> without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be
> approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must
> a vote must take place on the code change.
> +
> +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the
> community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to
> seek approval before making a change if they so desire.
> +
> ## Approvals
>
> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
> require different types of approvals.
> @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@
> <tr><td>Majority Approval</td>
> <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more
> binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td>
> <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td>
> - <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
> vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
> majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td>
> + <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
> vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
> majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained. Lazy Approval
> can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>, as detailed on the
> [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html).</td>
> </table>
>
> ## Vetoes
> @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@
>
> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
> project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who
> have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of
> time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes
> should not be called at times when it is known that interested members of
> the project will be unavailable.
>
> +For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or
> stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval
> has no minimum length of time before the change can be made.
> +
> <table>
> <tr><th>Action</th>
> <th>Description</th>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
> > is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> > standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
> > until these are clarified, should be removed.
> >
> > Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
> >
> > Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> > source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
> > consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
> >
> >
> > The current bylaws are visibile at
> >
> > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >
> > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
> >
> > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document
> > body
> > will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> > aforementioned line will be removed.
> >
> > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and
> more
> > +1
> > than -1's.
> >
> > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> > for the Apache
> > Accumulo project."
> > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
> changes,
> > but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> > [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> > accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>.
Let's spend a minute evaluating whether we can easily fix the issues in the
bylaws, rather than just putting it off. For example, would the following
changes address the problem?
Index: bylaws.mdtext
===================================================================
--- bylaws.mdtext (revision 1584734)
+++ bylaws.mdtext (working copy)
@@ -125,8 +125,15 @@
All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For
technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding.
Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community.
For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
-Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please
refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details.
+See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html)
for more details on the mechanics of voting.
+<a name="CTR"></a>
+## Commit Then Review (CTR)
+
+Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the
Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase
without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be
approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must
a vote must take place on the code change.
+
+For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the
community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to
seek approval before making a change if they so desire.
+
## Approvals
These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
require different types of approvals.
@@ -139,7 +146,7 @@
<tr><td>Majority Approval</td>
<td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more
binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td>
<tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td>
- <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td>
+ <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1
vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained. Lazy Approval
can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>, as detailed on the
[voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html).</td>
</table>
## Vetoes
@@ -152,6 +159,8 @@
This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who
have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of
time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes
should not be called at times when it is known that interested members of
the project will be unavailable.
+For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or
stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval
has no minimum length of time before the change can be made.
+
<table>
<tr><th>Action</th>
<th>Description</th>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
> until these are clarified, should be removed.
>
> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
>
> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
>
>
> The current bylaws are visibile at
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
>
> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document
> body
> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> aforementioned line will be removed.
>
> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more
> +1
> than -1's.
>
> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> for the Apache
> Accumulo project."
> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw changes,
> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
>
> Thank you.
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>.
This vote has been superseded by the following successful vote to clarify
CTR and the Code Change action: http://s.apache.org/iHC
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
> until these are clarified, should be removed.
>
> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
>
> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
>
>
> The current bylaws are visibile at
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
>
> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document
> body
> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> aforementioned line will be removed.
>
> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more
> +1
> than -1's.
>
> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> for the Apache
> Accumulo project."
> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw changes,
> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
>
> Thank you.
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
I apologize for the "drama" remark. I merely sensed drama in the community
and accuse no one of anything improper.
Bill H
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > Removing the line with no substitute is unacceptable. It can be implied
> > that code changes are not subject to review and/or community approval,
> > without the alluded-to commit and review standard in place. I doubt any
> > Apache project's bylaws omit the line (checked: Hadoop, HBase, Hive,
> > ZooKeeper, Pig).
> >
>
> I'm curious, are all of those projects RTC rather than CTR?
>
>
> >
> > It's better to work the commit and review policy, and then update the
> line
> > accordingly.
> >
> > Also, the rule has also been in place for less than two hours. Really. It
> > hasn't even proven to be a problem yet. This drama is unbecoming to our
> > community.
> >
>
> This isn't drama. It was obvious from the bylaws vote that changes needed
> to be made in the document, and this is prompt action addressing that
> need. (However, I would prefer to redirect the action towards
> clarification ...)
>
>
> >
> > Bill H
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should
> > be
> > > > replaced with "version 1".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws.
> > > This
> > > >> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> > > >> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws
> > > and,
> > > >> until these are clarified, should be removed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
> > > >>
> > > >> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This
> includes
> > > >> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval,
> moving
> > > to
> > > >> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The current bylaws are visibile at
> > > >>
> > > >> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > >>
> > > >> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
> > > >>
> > > >> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
> > document
> > > >> body
> > > >> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> > > >> aforementioned line will be removed.
> > > >>
> > > >> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes
> and
> > > more
> > > >> +1
> > > >> than -1's.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> > > >> for the Apache
> > > >> Accumulo project."
> > > >> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
> > > >> changes,
> > > >> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> > > >> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do
> not
> > > >> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
> -1
>
> Removing the line with no substitute is unacceptable. It can be implied
> that code changes are not subject to review and/or community approval,
> without the alluded-to commit and review standard in place. I doubt any
> Apache project's bylaws omit the line (checked: Hadoop, HBase, Hive,
> ZooKeeper, Pig).
>
I'm curious, are all of those projects RTC rather than CTR?
>
> It's better to work the commit and review policy, and then update the line
> accordingly.
>
> Also, the rule has also been in place for less than two hours. Really. It
> hasn't even proven to be a problem yet. This drama is unbecoming to our
> community.
>
This isn't drama. It was obvious from the bylaws vote that changes needed
to be made in the document, and this is prompt action addressing that
need. (However, I would prefer to redirect the action towards
clarification ...)
>
> Bill H
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should
> be
> > > replaced with "version 1".
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws.
> > This
> > >> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> > >> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws
> > and,
> > >> until these are clarified, should be removed.
> > >>
> > >> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
> > >>
> > >> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> > >> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving
> > to
> > >> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The current bylaws are visibile at
> > >>
> > >> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > >>
> > >> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
> > >>
> > >> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
> document
> > >> body
> > >> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> > >> aforementioned line will be removed.
> > >>
> > >> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and
> > more
> > >> +1
> > >> than -1's.
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> > >> for the Apache
> > >> Accumulo project."
> > >> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
> > >> changes,
> > >> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> > >> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> > >> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> > >>
> > >> Thank you.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.
-1, I would need replacement text to establish how we deal with disagreeing
with a commit.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every
> single
> > code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had
> > been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving
> > others questioning whether it should not be there.
> >
> > Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws
> > anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw
> > changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided
> it's
> > best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until
> > something a more sound can be put in place.
> >
> >
>
> John,
>
> I respectfully disagree. AFAICT from the previous thread, everyone agreed
> with you that the bylaw was not meant to imply that commits had to be up
> for review. I, for one, would not support a rogue committer attempting to
> leverage that line to claim we need to be RtC. I'm reasonably certain the
> rest of the community would do the same.
>
> While we had consensus that _something_ needed to be done with this part of
> the bylaws, I don't think we had reached it on what the appropriate change
> was. It isn't productive for us to approach the bylaws as a coercive
> bludgeon that we must guard against abuse. We're a community first and
> foremost and we need to approach things with assumed good intent.
>
> --
> Sean
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every single
> code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had
> been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving
> others questioning whether it should not be there.
>
> Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws
> anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw
> changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided it's
> best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until
> something a more sound can be put in place.
>
>
John,
I respectfully disagree. AFAICT from the previous thread, everyone agreed
with you that the bylaw was not meant to imply that commits had to be up
for review. I, for one, would not support a rogue committer attempting to
leverage that line to claim we need to be RtC. I'm reasonably certain the
rest of the community would do the same.
While we had consensus that _something_ needed to be done with this part of
the bylaws, I don't think we had reached it on what the appropriate change
was. It isn't productive for us to approach the bylaws as a coercive
bludgeon that we must guard against abuse. We're a community first and
foremost and we need to approach things with assumed good intent.
--
Sean
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
That's a reasonable argument, and I won't argue with you on it.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every single
> code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had
> been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving
> others questioning whether it should not be there.
>
> Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws
> anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw
> changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided it's
> best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until
> something a more sound can be put in place.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > Removing the line with no substitute is unacceptable. It can be implied
> > that code changes are not subject to review and/or community approval,
> > without the alluded-to commit and review standard in place. I doubt any
> > Apache project's bylaws omit the line (checked: Hadoop, HBase, Hive,
> > ZooKeeper, Pig).
> >
> > It's better to work the commit and review policy, and then update the
> line
> > accordingly.
> >
> > Also, the rule has also been in place for less than two hours. Really. It
> > hasn't even proven to be a problem yet. This drama is unbecoming to our
> > community.
> >
> > Bill H
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should
> > be
> > > > replaced with "version 1".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws.
> > > This
> > > >> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> > > >> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws
> > > and,
> > > >> until these are clarified, should be removed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
> > > >>
> > > >> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This
> includes
> > > >> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval,
> moving
> > > to
> > > >> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The current bylaws are visibile at
> > > >>
> > > >> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > >>
> > > >> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
> > > >>
> > > >> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
> > document
> > > >> body
> > > >> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> > > >> aforementioned line will be removed.
> > > >>
> > > >> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes
> and
> > > more
> > > >> +1
> > > >> than -1's.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> > > >> for the Apache
> > > >> Accumulo project."
> > > >> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
> > > >> changes,
> > > >> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> > > >> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do
> not
> > > >> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every single
code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had
been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving
others questioning whether it should not be there.
Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws
anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw
changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided it's
best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until
something a more sound can be put in place.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
> -1
>
> Removing the line with no substitute is unacceptable. It can be implied
> that code changes are not subject to review and/or community approval,
> without the alluded-to commit and review standard in place. I doubt any
> Apache project's bylaws omit the line (checked: Hadoop, HBase, Hive,
> ZooKeeper, Pig).
>
> It's better to work the commit and review policy, and then update the line
> accordingly.
>
> Also, the rule has also been in place for less than two hours. Really. It
> hasn't even proven to be a problem yet. This drama is unbecoming to our
> community.
>
> Bill H
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should
> be
> > > replaced with "version 1".
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws.
> > This
> > >> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> > >> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws
> > and,
> > >> until these are clarified, should be removed.
> > >>
> > >> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
> > >>
> > >> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> > >> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving
> > to
> > >> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The current bylaws are visibile at
> > >>
> > >> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > >>
> > >> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
> > >>
> > >> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
> document
> > >> body
> > >> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> > >> aforementioned line will be removed.
> > >>
> > >> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and
> > more
> > >> +1
> > >> than -1's.
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> > >> for the Apache
> > >> Accumulo project."
> > >> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
> > >> changes,
> > >> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> > >> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> > >> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> > >>
> > >> Thank you.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.
-1
Removing the line with no substitute is unacceptable. It can be implied
that code changes are not subject to review and/or community approval,
without the alluded-to commit and review standard in place. I doubt any
Apache project's bylaws omit the line (checked: Hadoop, HBase, Hive,
ZooKeeper, Pig).
It's better to work the commit and review policy, and then update the line
accordingly.
Also, the rule has also been in place for less than two hours. Really. It
hasn't even proven to be a problem yet. This drama is unbecoming to our
community.
Bill H
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should be
> > replaced with "version 1".
> >
> >
> > On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
> >>
> >> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws.
> This
> >> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> >> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws
> and,
> >> until these are clarified, should be removed.
> >>
> >> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
> >>
> >> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> >> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving
> to
> >> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
> >>
> >>
> >> The current bylaws are visibile at
> >>
> >> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >>
> >> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
> >>
> >> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document
> >> body
> >> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> >> aforementioned line will be removed.
> >>
> >> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and
> more
> >> +1
> >> than -1's.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> >> for the Apache
> >> Accumulo project."
> >> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
> >> changes,
> >> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> >> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> >> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >
>
--
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.
+1
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should be
> replaced with "version 1".
>
>
> On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
>>
>> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
>> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
>> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
>> until these are clarified, should be removed.
>>
>> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
>>
>> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
>> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
>> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
>>
>>
>> The current bylaws are visibile at
>>
>> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>
>> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
>>
>> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document
>> body
>> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
>> aforementioned line will be removed.
>>
>> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more
>> +1
>> than -1's.
>>
>> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
>> for the Apache
>> Accumulo project."
>> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw
>> changes,
>> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
>> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
>> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Bylaws - Action changes
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
Minor correction, the bylaws currently state "version 0" so it should be
replaced with "version 1".
On 4/4/14, 11:04 AM, John Vines wrote:
> This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This
> is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the
> standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and,
> until these are clarified, should be removed.
>
> Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
>
> Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes
> source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to
> consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1
>
>
> The current bylaws are visibile at
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
> This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
>
> Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document body
> will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the
> aforementioned line will be removed.
>
> This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more
> +1
> than -1's.
>
> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them
> for the Apache
> Accumulo project."
> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw changes,
> but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not
> accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
>
> Thank you.
>