drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothy Chen <tnac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Drill bylaws
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:24:37 GMT
I see, wasn't really clear is this a general guideline our project is going for or just a last
resort enforcement.

If this is the latter as Steven mentioned then I am fine as is.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:03 PM, Steven Phillips <sphillips@maprtech.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Ted. I feel like the by-laws are really a last resort, and
> generally speaking we won't be invoking the by-laws, and can operate in de
> facto consensus mode. Only when it is clear that the consensus model is not
> working would it become necessary to invoke the by-laws, call for a vote,
> and then move forward if there is a majority.
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I have seen situations where a previous quite reasonable committer
>> propagated issues from their personal life into their open source life.
>> Having a consensus requirement made a number of important forward steps
>> nearly impossible.  The resulting unpleasantness is unavoidable to some
>> degree with any dispute, but when the one person has the ability to
>> propagate their private misery universally, it can nearly kill a project.
>> 
>> I would strongly recommend that consensus be the normal goal, but that lazy
>> majority be the legislated requirement.  Drill currently operates in a
>> review-then-commit mode in any case which should make vetoed commits almost
>> unheard of in any case.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Julian Hyde <julianhyde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think Jacques is probably right and Lazy Consensus is better. I have
>> not
>>> experienced a crisis where a commit is contentious, so it’s hypothetical
>>> for me. Changing my vote:
>>> 
>>> 0 (binding)
>>> 
>>> Julian
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 7, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I've given this some more thought and I think should fall back to Lazy
>>>> Conesus on code commits.  Given that the community is still young and
>> we
>>>> have okay but not great diversity, I think it would be best if we made
>>> sure
>>>> that smaller contingents in the community are heard.  I prefer to be
>>>> conservative in making sure each voice is heard early in the
>> development
>>> of
>>>> Drill.  If we find that the project becomes gridlocked by this, it
>> would
>>> be
>>>> reasonable to update the bylaws to use a lazy majority fallback
>> instead.
>>>> 
>>>> As such, I'm leaning towards a negative vote on the current bylaws.
>> That
>>>> said, I'd like to hear from others on how they feel about this.
>> Thoughts
>>>> people?
>>>> 
>>>> Jacques
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Steven Phillips <
>> sphillips@maprtech.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lazy Majority seems fine to me. Do we really want to allow a single
>>>>> dissenting vote to hold up needed changes?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's possible at some point there me be a split in the community over
>>> the
>>>>> direction that Drill should take,  and requiring consensus could
>> result
>>> in
>>>>> the project coming to a stand still.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I just got back after vacation so haven't had a chance to get caught
>> up
>>>>> on
>>>>>> email.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What was the thinking of using Lazy approval > Lazy Majority versus
>>> using
>>>>>> Lazy Approval > Lazy Consensus for code changes?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Tomer Shiran <tshiran@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In order for Drill to graduate to a TLP, we need to finalize
the
>>>>>> project's
>>>>>>> bylaws. Here's the latest proposal that has been shared/discussed
on
>>>>> this
>>>>>>> list:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Proposed+Bylaws
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours. It will close on Oct 9, 4pm
PT.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please indicate whether your vote is binding or non-binding.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Tomer
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Steven Phillips
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>> 
>>>>> mapr.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steven Phillips
> Software Engineer
> 
> mapr.com

Mime
View raw message