On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 7:01 PM Ilan Ginzburg <ilans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we go with no negative node roles and overseer node role is not strict > (i.e. it’s a "preferred overseer"), then one would need to define a second > node role "no_overseer" to explicitly exclude a node from ever becoming > overseer (which I think is a useful feature until we switch the cluster > default to not using the overseer), plus the implementation of these two > node roles will obviously be coupled (and what if a node has both defined?). > > Or add configuration options to the existing role? Only an issue if you want to change the current behavior away from the default install and even thin if it's easily put back with config that's not too big of a deal.
