drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Drill bylaws
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:44:51 GMT
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
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message