Jeremy, The PMC boards in ASF are required to look out for the long term health of the entire project. This is why the conversation of consensus can be a touchy one and a hard one to agree on. If a single PMC member vetos a code change, can that single member stop the code from being changed or could majority overrule the veto. It's going to be a complicated discussion.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jeremy, > > The PMC boards in ASF are re > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: > >> 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 <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? >> > > >> > >
