<opinion owner="bill_h" validity="dubious"> Voting is not a substitute for deliberation, working as a group to generate agreement on decisions. First, those involved get together and hash out the details, and then at some point there is a vote on the outcome of those deliberations. (Unless you're Congress. ZING) Deliberation can take a long time ... a really long time. And it's not usually fun. At some point you just must call it.
I don't like consensus approval for bylaw changes because someone could torpedo the vote and ruin the extensive work that went into getting there. It can actually discourage being involved in the deliberative process, because you could always just jump in at the vote time and veto, either for a well thought-out reason or just because. That's not fair to everyone who spent lots of time deliberating, compromising, exploring. (Harshness warning.) If you really had an issue, you should have brought it up before the vote was called so the community could spend proper time on it. Voting time isn't the appropriate time to discover fundamental issues with what you're voting on. Also, in life, you don't always get what you want, and you don't always get it perfect the first time. Majority approval lets a group get something good enough, even with some problems and disagreement, started, or progressing. You can then begin a new round of deliberations, and vote on modifications to make it even better. Even if that modification is changing to consensus approval for bylaw changes. </opinion> If the XML tag wasn't signal enough, this is really my opinion. Part of this is working out, as a community, how we make decisions, so you should certainly form your own opinion and apply it to the current vote and future ones. On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > 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 <bhava...@clouderagovt.com > >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 <ctubb...@apache.org> 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 <vi...@apache.org> 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 <jvi...@gmail.com> 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 < > > bhava...@clouderagovt.com > > > >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 <mad...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > +1 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Eric Newton < > eric.new...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>> 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 < > > 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 > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Cheers > > > >> ~John > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > // Bill Havanki > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > > // 443.686.9283 > > > -- // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
