Well sorry to have missed the previous discussion thread but I really think that the consensus voting provisions are serious problems. It would have been much better for me to raise these issues earlier. My apologies for not doing so.
-1 for the record as this proposal stands. My own oversight is evidence of why full consensus is unworkable. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:05, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just to set some context here, we already had an earlier discussion that is > relevant: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-dev/201406.mbox/%3ccadmkjezy9bwbcmw-zg2z97js8afyn++483vxlueq18agmw7...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-dev/201406.mbox/%3ccfd1acf5.30b19%[email protected]%3e > > I'm also open to turning this into a further DISCUSSION thread. > > -Taylor > >>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a >>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered >>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form >>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request >>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus >>> approval of the active PMC members. >> >> There are several places where you use full consensus. I think that this >> is very damaging to a project since it can be very, very hard to recover >> from apathy or other problem. Lazy consensus would be much better. >> >> I think that the recently adopted Drill bylaws are much better in some of >> these respects. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws
