On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? >> > Do you want to relax this and say that as long an API method was deprecated in a 1.X release,made before 2.0.0, that it can be dropped in 2.0.0? > >> 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. >
