To be effective, most boards need to be small (~5 people) and not involved with day-to-day. Ideally, if someone says "let's bring this to the board for a decision" the collective response should be "no, let's figure out a compromise".
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:26:09PM -0600, Mike Drob wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] 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? > >
