Yes, precisely.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:47 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > That makes sense, Sean. So are you saying that you think it's best to > include no language whatsoever to enable restricting CtR vetoes during a > release? > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've spent some time dealing with hostiles in internet communities. Based >> on my experience, I would strongly recommend against gearing our bylaws >> towards guarding against actors we disagree with. >> >> 1) It presumes a conflict oriented community >> >> 2) It presumes we will have community members acting maliciously >> >> 3) It presumes any guard we come up with would ultimately work >> >> The fact of the matter is that if we are unfortunate enough to have >> someone who wants to be disruptive, they will find a way to be disruptive. >> Defining more elaborate rulesets to try to constrain them will ultimately >> only result in giving them more ammunition to work with. >> >> It is generally best to provide a reasonably loose set of community >> standards and then rely on the communities shared interest. >> >> -Sean >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:19 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In the bylaw discussion, we had discussed the potential for someone to >>> reject a commit as a method to reject a release. Is this something that >>> we >>> want to guard against with every release (if possible, we may need to >>> provide this ability in the bylaws) or should there be language in our >>> definitions to handle it? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > As previously stated, I like this proposed change and would vote in >>> favor >>> > of it. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Billie Rinaldi < >>> [email protected] >>> > >wrote: >>> > >>> > > This is a proposal to adequately describe our Commit-Then-Review >>> process >>> > in >>> > > the bylaws. I have made an initial suggestion below. If we can >>> agree on >>> > > how to make this clarification, presumably this change would be made >>> > > instead of removing the Code Change action from the bylaws (or would >>> > > involve adding Code Change back in, if it happens that that change >>> has >>> > > already taken place). >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > 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 >>> > [lazy >>> > > consensus page]( >>> http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/lazyConsensus.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> >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Sean >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sean >> > > -- Sean
