On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]>wrote:
> <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 > No one should be able to veto "just because". A veto should have a defensible reason. Also if someone is not willing to defend their veto, is it valid? If someone votes -1 and never answers questions about their position, can that vote be ignored? > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > > > > > > > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >
