It means to me that we don't want to put a minimum time for code review there to avoid slowing things down too much. At some point I think we have to trust our committers to not +1 really bad stuff. That being said, accidents happen (I've made many of them ;) and I think it's on us to impose expectations of quality via candid discussion.
I haven't seen us barrel things through and I think the number of +1s required is sort of arbitrary. Once the number of committers grows, getting 2 +1's will be as easy as getting 1 +1 now. I'd rather have a culture of care and consideration that we impose organically than trying to fix this through bylaws. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, David Lyle <[email protected]> wrote: > What does "Votes relating to code changes are not subject to a strict > timetable but should be made as timely as possible" mean to you? > > One issue I'm concerned about with lazy consensus is having adequate time > to review a code change. Requiring 2 +1's has been pain sometimes, but it > kind of makes sure everyone gets a look. Is there a better way to achieve > that aim? Is that even a valuable aim? > > -D... > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Nick Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think lazy consensus for code modification is appropriate for where we > > are at with Metron. As the community matures, we can revisit if needed. > > > > I am a +1 on the bylaws as you have them written. > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > We do not currently have bylaws, so we default we are in sort of > nebulous > > > territory from what I can tell. Take the voting on code modifications, > > for > > > instance, we are bound by the rules here > > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>, from my understanding > > > (since we don't have voted-in bylaws): > > > > > > > > For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, > > but > > > > -1 votes are vetos < > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto> > > > and > > > > kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes. > > > > > > > > Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus > > > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> , three > > +1 > > > > votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass. > > > > > > > > We, however, have adopted a de facto 2 +1's for code modification. > The > > > bylaws that we put up originally state a lazy consensus of 1 +1 is > > > sufficient. > > > > > > What I propose is that we figure out what they SHOULD be and abide by > the > > > stated bylaws that we advertise. > > > There is not a good way to see the diff because we abide by de facto > > rules > > > that do not seem to be written down. > > > > > > I would read the original proposed bylaws and see if you see > differences > > in > > > how we act day-to-day and if you're ok with those differences. If not, > > > then bring it up on this thread and we can hash it out. > > > > > > I am not champing at the bit for a vote, but I would like us to have > > > bylaws, so I wanted to make sure this wasn't a "consensus of silence" > > > situation. I think we can stand a bit of discussion on this and thus > far > > > there has been only crickets. > > > > > > Casey > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nick Allen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > I don't quite understand the proposal. How do these bylaws differ > from > > > > what is already in-place? Is there a way I can see the diff between > > what > > > > we have now? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ok, it's been a month of crickets. I'm going to put this up for a > > > vote. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to get the Apache bylaws that we have on the website > > > discussed > > > > > > and possibly voted in. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have anything to object to in the bylaws as listed > here > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Apache+Metron+Bylaws > > > > > >? > > > > > > > > > > > > Casey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Nick Allen <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nick Allen <[email protected]> > > >
