On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>wrote:
> This is a proposal to adequately describe our Commit-Then-Review process in > the bylaws. I have made an initial suggestion below. If we can agree on > how to make this clarification, presumably this change would be made > instead of removing the Code Change action from the bylaws (or would > involve adding Code Change back in, if it happens that that change has > already taken place). > > > Index: bylaws.mdtext > ============================== > ===================================== > --- bylaws.mdtext (revision 1584734) > +++ bylaws.mdtext (working copy) > @@ -125,8 +125,15 @@ > > All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For > technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding. > Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to > understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community. > For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding. > > -Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please > refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details. > +See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html) > for more details on the mechanics of voting. > > +<a name="CTR"></a> > +## Commit Then Review (CTR) > + > +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the > Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase > without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be > approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must > a vote must take place on the code change. > + > +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the > community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to > seek approval before making a change if they so desire. > + > ## Approvals > > These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions > require different types of approvals. > @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@ > <tr><td>Majority Approval</td> > <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more > binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td> > <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td> > - <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 > vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either > majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td> > + <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 > vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either > majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained. Lazy Approval > can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>, as detailed on the [lazy > consensus page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/lazyConsensus.html) > .</td> > If there is a commit and then a -1, is consensus or majority needed to avert a revert? > </table> > > ## Vetoes > @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@ > > This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the > project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who > have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of > time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes > should not be called at times when it is known that interested members of > the project will be unavailable. > > +For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or > stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval > has no minimum length of time before the change can be made. > + > <table> > <tr><th>Action</th> > <th>Description</th> >
