Then my interpretation on the voting period doesn't make sense, so never mind it. Thanks for clarifying!
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:20 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 >> > > -- // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
