bhavanki: can you expand on why you didn't like consensus approval for the bylaws?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]>wrote: > I dug into the dev archives for how the approval definition got set. > Originally, from the ZooKeeper bylaws [1], modification required 2/3 > majority of ALL PMC members to +1 in order to pass. Billie didn't prefer > that since it isn't an ASF-defined vote, and suggested consensus [2] > (February 26). > > I didn't like that and preferred majority since (surprise!) I didn't like > the idea of a veto. I preferred majority approval. [next in thread after 2] > Billie said she was neutral about that [second in thread after 2]. So, I > set it to majority approval and said anyone can switch it to consensus, > that would be fine [3] (March 4). No one changed it. So, here we are. > > The ASF voting guidelines [4] only discuss vetoes in the context of code > modification. Its section on Procedural Votes is unhelpfully empty. > However, at the top it says: > > Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless > otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is typically > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus for a modifying > factor.) > > > When I called this vote, I decided that since the bylaws stated majority > approval for modifications, the vote should be majority approval. There was > time for the community to deliberate about it before the vote, so absent > any concern (that I recall seeing) it was the consistent choice. (In fact, > the first vote Mike called on March 10 was also majority approval.) > > That is my rationale for majority approval in this vote. > > Bill > > [1] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html > [2] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201402.mbox/%3CCAF1jEfDsHU_tG94TNs-=mss65gedp2yvxempgr1kzq5gsb-...@mail.gmail.com%3E > [3] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201403.mbox/%3ccad-ffu+sx7ae0cmu5ac9xvr0oxwgemm-v0o0rnpeqcnxuva...@mail.gmail.com%3E > [4] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to change my vote to a -1, > > based on the point that John just brought up. > > > > After some thought, I'm not sure it makes sense for people to be bound > > by operating rules they did not agree to, especially for the initial > > adoption. I think consensus approval makes more sense for modifying > > the bylaws (and for the initial adoption of those bylaws) than does > > majority approval. > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm also wondering if modifying bylaws, for now and in the future, > should > > > be consensus approval. Why is that scaled down to Majority? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> -1 > > >> > > >> There is still no clarity on code change actions, which I think need > to > > be > > >> resolved before it should pass. It seems to be ambiguous, > intentionally, > > >> with the intent to revise later. If that's the case, it should just be > > >> removed until a more definitive guideline can be put in place. Or just > > >> point at an existing CTR guideline. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Bill Havanki < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > >> > > >>> Reminder to all: the bylaw vote ends at 10 AM EDT / 7 AM PDT tomorrow > > >>> morning. Majority approval is required. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Bill > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > +1 > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Eric Newton <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > +1 > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Thank you all for working through something that makes me want to > > go > > >>> back > > >>> > > to reading gigabytes of debug logs. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > -Eric > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > 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 > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Cheers > > >> ~John > > >> > > > > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >
