metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws discussion
Date Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:56:30 GMT
It means to me that we don't want to put a minimum time for code review
there to avoid slowing things down too much.  At some point I think we have
to trust our committers to not +1 really bad stuff.  That being said,
accidents happen (I've made many of them ;) and I think it's on us to
impose expectations of quality via candid discussion.

I haven't seen us barrel things through and I think the number of +1s
required is sort of arbitrary.  Once the number of committers grows,
getting 2 +1's will be as easy as getting 1 +1 now.  I'd rather have a
culture of care and consideration that we impose organically than trying to
fix this through bylaws.



On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65535@gmail.com> wrote:

> What does "Votes relating to code changes are not subject to a strict
> timetable but should be made as timely as possible" mean to you?
>
> One issue I'm concerned about with lazy consensus is having adequate time
> to review a code change. Requiring 2 +1's has been pain sometimes, but it
> kind of makes sure everyone gets a look. Is there a better way to achieve
> that aim? Is that even a valuable aim?
>
> -D...
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > I think lazy consensus for code modification is appropriate for where we
> > are at with Metron.  As the community matures, we can revisit if needed.
> >
> > I am a +1 on the bylaws as you have them written.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We do not currently have bylaws, so we default we are in sort of
> nebulous
> > > territory from what I can tell.  Take the voting on code modifications,
> > for
> > > instance, we are bound by the rules here
> > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>, from my understanding
> > > (since we don't have voted-in bylaws):
> > > >
> > > > For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal,
> > but
> > > > -1 votes are vetos <
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto>
> > > and
> > > > kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
> > > >
> > > > Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus
> > > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> , three
> > +1
> > > > votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass.
> > > >
> > > > We, however, have adopted a de facto 2 +1's for code modification.
> The
> > > bylaws that we put up originally state a lazy consensus of 1 +1 is
> > > sufficient.
> > >
> > > What I propose is that we figure out what they SHOULD be and abide by
> the
> > > stated bylaws that we advertise.
> > > There is not a good way to see the diff because we abide by de facto
> > rules
> > > that do not seem to be written down.
> > >
> > > I would read the original proposed bylaws and see if you see
> differences
> > in
> > > how we act day-to-day and if you're ok with those differences.  If not,
> > > then bring it up on this thread and we can hash it out.
> > >
> > > I am not champing at the bit for a vote, but I would like us to have
> > > bylaws, so I wanted to make sure this wasn't a "consensus of silence"
> > > situation.  I think we can stand a bit of discussion on this and thus
> far
> > > there has been only crickets.
> > >
> > > Casey
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't quite understand the proposal.  How do these bylaws differ
> from
> > > > what is already in-place?  Is there a way I can see the diff between
> > what
> > > > we have now?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, it's been a month of crickets.  I'm going to put this up for
a
> > > vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to get the Apache bylaws that we have on the website
> > > discussed
> > > > > > and possibly voted in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone have anything to object to in the bylaws as listed
> here
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Apache+Metron+Bylaws
> > > > > >?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Casey
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> >
>

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