Mike Drob wrote:
It looks like we've had several proposed amendments to the original
> > proposal, but I am very unclear on if we are voting on any of them or if
> > they are simply brought up as nice discussion points. There's been so
> much
> > discussion in this VOTE thread (a strange complaint, I know) that I don't
> > have a clear picture of what is up for decision any more.
> > There has been so much negotiating and back and forth that I don't know
> > which amendments are part of the vote, which ones are intended to be a
> > follow on vote, and which ones are wild ideas that only a splinter group
> > supports.
> >
>
> I think votes should only be considered as for or against the original
> proposal, discussion can happen after someone votes.
>
> Sounds like you're saying that none of them apply. That's fine. In that
case:
-1. The language in the initial proposal is vague and imprecise.
Mechanically, where do we apply these guidelines? Are these changes to our
governance model?
Why are we forcing ourselves to commit to the1.7 API in2.0, if there is a
1.8 that deprecates things? What is so special about1.7 at all?
I agree with John's concerns.
I don't think that we can make practical progress on this issue until we
have a real proposal in hand. I'd rather not speculate and vote about
hypothetical APIs.
The point of trying to prevent any removals/changes was to satisfy the
concerns that Sean had raised about ACCUMULO-3176. That's the entire
basis for this discussion if that helps.
