-1 on the Vote as phrased. While I am a big supporter of the Apache notion that community is more important than code, our bylaws need to state _something_ about our policy around code changes.
I like Billie's suggested move to define CtR. It does a great job of removing the ambiguity people were concerned about in describing CtR without calling it CtR. I would +1 a vote on that diff. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]>wrote: > Let's spend a minute evaluating whether we can easily fix the issues in the > bylaws, rather than just putting it off. For example, would the following > changes address the problem? > > Index: bylaws.mdtext > =================================================================== > --- bylaws.mdtext (revision 1584734) > +++ bylaws.mdtext (working copy) > @@ -125,8 +125,15 @@ > > All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For > technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding. > Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to > understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community. > For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding. > > -Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please > refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details. > +See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html) > for more details on the mechanics of voting. > > +<a name="CTR"></a> > +## Commit Then Review (CTR) > + > +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the > Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase > without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be > approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must > a vote must take place on the code change. > + > +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the > community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to > seek approval before making a change if they so desire. > + > ## Approvals > > These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions > require different types of approvals. > @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@ > <tr><td>Majority Approval</td> > <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more > binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td> > <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td> > - <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 > vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either > majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td> > + <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 > vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either > majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained. Lazy Approval > can be either <em>stated</em> or <em>assumed</em>, as detailed on the > [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html).</td> > </table> > > ## Vetoes > @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@ > > This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the > project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who > have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of > time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes > should not be called at times when it is known that interested members of > the project will be unavailable. > > +For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or > stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval > has no minimum length of time before the change can be made. > + > <table> > <tr><th>Action</th> > <th>Description</th> > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This > > is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the > > standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and, > > until these are clarified, should be removed. > > > > Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed > > > > Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes > > source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to > > consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1 > > > > > > The current bylaws are visibile at > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC. > > > > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document > > body > > will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the > > aforementioned line will be removed. > > > > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and > more > > +1 > > than -1's. > > > > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them > > for the Apache > > Accumulo project." > > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw > changes, > > but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project." > > [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not > > accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..." > > > > Thank you. > > >
