On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > It is intended to be a "technical discussion", in the sense of the bylaws > statement (in section "Roles and Responsibilities: Committers"), "Committers > may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding any > subproject." I therefore intended it to be a majority vote of Committers.
I'm not sure how you conclude that technical discussions are resolved with majority votes. http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > Interestingly, this need to discuss tooling and other issues that go beyond > a simple "code change" is not addressed in the "Decision Making: Actions" > section of the bylaws. That need seems to have been overlooked in the > current rev of that section. But I do not agree that such issues are "code > changes"; it relates to the tools we depend on to make code changes, which > is clearly qualitatively different. I don't see a striking difference between this and a proposed code change. How is a -1 here fundamentally different than a veto on a patch submitted to HADOOP-9082? Doug
