On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 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. > I think that's technically true. However, presumably that would get worked out earlier as part of the release plan and planning. > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com > > >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 <vi...@apache.org> 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 < > > billie.rina...@gmail.com > > >> >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 <vi...@apache.org> > 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 < > > >> billie.rina...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> > > 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 < > bil...@apache.org> > > >> >>>> 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 < > > >> >>>> bhava...@clouderagovt.com > > >> >>>> > >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 > > > > > >