I do not like this. It sounds like I can veto a release by putting a veto on a commit, when we explicitly state that release votes are majority, not consensus.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > First, +1 vote > > > > As part of getting us a (literally) passable first set of bylaws as a > > foundation, at one point I "refactored" the commit and review details out > > to an as-yet-to-be-written standard. So, what is in the bylaws should be > > interpreted as permissive. > > > > My interpretations: A "code change" can certainly be a commit - "a change > > made to a codebase of a project". Lazy approval is based on that commit. > > The minimum voting period (here and for release plan) applies to both > vote > > phases separately, so *n* days for lazy approval, *n* days for consensus > > if needed. (I imagine lazy approval has some period since getting a veto > > one month later shouldn't be possible, for example; but if that doesn't > > make sense, never mind. :) ) > > > > A change can be vetoed until the code is released. :) > > > > > > I have all sorts of ideas about the commit and review details, and I bet > > others do too, which is why I like having that split off from getting > some > > version 1 bylaws in place. As the policies evolve, we still have the > option > > to modify the bylaws as needed. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:40 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The only two places we have a lazy falling back to another type of vote > is > >> code change and release plan. For release plan, I interpret the minimum > >> length to apply to either type of vote. However, you're stating that > this > >> is not the case for a code change. So there is ambiguity about minimum > >> length applying to lazy approvals that needs to be cleared up here. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Billie Rinaldi < > [email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > The only time there is more than one type of approval (not vote) > >> required > >> > is when the first one is lazy consensus, which doesn't actually > require > >> a > >> > vote. Maybe we just need some elaboration on how to CTR which is > >> > referenced from this doc ("Please refer to the Accumulo commit and > >> review > >> > standard for details")? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> If that is the case, then I think we should provide distinction about > >> the > >> >> time lengths between the various types of votes, for the cases where > >> there > >> >> are multiple possible votes involved. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Billie Rinaldi < > >> [email protected]>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> The way I'm reading actions, all code changes must be presented at > >> least > >> >>>> one day before they can be committed. Is that intended this way? > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I wasn't reading it that way. Code change is lazy approval, and "An > >> >>> action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 vote is > >> >>> received." Not requiring a vote supersedes the minimum vote length. > >> In > >> >>> the event of falling back to consensus approval for code change, the > >> >>> minimum vote length is 1 day. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Hey everyone! We only have 3 more days to vote on Accumulo's > >> bylaws > >> >>>> ... > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Bill Havanki < > >> >>>> [email protected] > >> >>>> > >wrote: > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > Please vote on the proposed bylaws, as available at > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > * > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > >> > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1582476&view=markup > >> >>>> > > < > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > >> > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1582476&view=markup > >> >>>> > > >* > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > A nicer-to-read version is available at > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 4 April 2014 14:00 > UTC. > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the > >> >>>> document > >> >>>> > > body > >> >>>> > > will be replaced with "This is version 1 of the bylaws," and > the > >> >>>> > statement > >> >>>> > > defining the document as a draft will be stricken. > Additionally, > >> a > >> >>>> link > >> >>>> > to > >> >>>> > > the document will be added to the navigation menu. > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 > votes > >> >>>> and > >> >>>> > more > >> >>>> > > +1 > >> >>>> > > than -1's. > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them > for > >> the > >> >>>> > > Apache Accumulo > >> >>>> > > project." > >> >>>> > > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed > >> >>>> bylaws, but > >> >>>> > > accept them for the Apache Accumulo project." > >> >>>> > > [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws 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 > > >
