Jeremey, FWIW I believe that the PMC is supposed to be that board. In our case, it happens to also be the same population as the committers, because it was suggested that the overlap leads to a healthier community overall.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: > -1 (I vote to keep current consensus approach) > > An alternative method for resolution would be to setup an > elected (or appointed) advisory board of a small number of folks whose > job it is to look out for the long-term health and strategy of Accumulo. > This board could then > be appealed to on the rare occassions when consensus over important > long-term issues > cannot be achieved. Just the presence of such a board often has the effect > encouraging productive compromise amongst participants. > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:33:40PM +0000, dlmar...@comcast.net wrote: > > > > It was suggested in the ACCUMULO-3176 thread that code changes should be > majority approval instead of consensus approval. I'd like to explore this > idea as it might keep the voting email threads less verbose and leave the > discussion and consensus building to the comments in JIRA. Thoughts? >
