I am OK with codifying the retroactive -1 as proposed by Nathan, and I am otherwise OK with the proposed bylaws. -- Derek
----- Original Message ----- From: Bobby Evans <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws That seems fine to me. Most other projects I have worked on follow a similar procedure, and a retroactive -1 can be applied, without having it codified, but making it official seems fine to me. I am +1 for those changes. - Bobby On Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:23 AM, Nathan Marz <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, I would like to codify it. It's not about there being a bug with a patch – it's about realizing that particular patch does not fit in with a coherent vision of Storm, or that functionality could be achieved in a completely different way. So basically, preventing bloat. With that change I'm +1 to the bylaws and I believe we would have a consensus. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:34 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no problem with your proposal. Actually I never even considered > setting a timeline for a revert. I've always felt that if there was any > problem with a patch/modification, it could be reverted at any time -- no > deadline. If we find a problem, we fix it. We've reverted changes in the > past, and lived to tell about it :). > > So I would think we don't even have to mention any revert timeline. If we > feel the need to codify that, I'm okay with it. > > -Taylor > > > On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Nathan Marz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm -1 on these bylaws. This commit process encourages merging as fast as > > possible and does not give adequate time for dissenting opinions to veto > a > > patch. I'm concerned about two things: > > > > 1. Regressions - Having too lax of a merge process will lead to > unforeseen > > regressions. We all saw this first hand with ZeroMQ: I had to freeze the > > version of ZeroMQ used by Storm because subsequent versions would regress > > in numerous ways. > > 2. Bloat – All software projects have a tendency to become bloated and > > build complexity because things were added piecemeal without a coherent > > vision. > > > > These are very serious issues, and I've seen too many projects become > > messes because of them. The only way to control these problems are with > > -1's. Trust isn't even the issue here – one committer may very well > think a > > new feature "looks fine" and "why not let it in", while another will > > recognize that the feature is unnecessary, adds complexity, and/or can be > > addressed via better means. As is, the proposed bylaws are attempting to > > make vetoing very difficult. > > > > I have a proposal which I believe gets the best of all worlds: allowing > for > > fast responsiveness on contributions while allowing for regressions and > > bloat to be controlled. It is just a slight modification of the current > > bylaws: > > > > "A minimum of one +1 from a Committer other than the one who authored the > > patch, and no -1s. The code can be committed after the first +1. If a -1 > is > > received to the patch within 7 days after the patch was posted, it may be > > reverted immediately if it was already merged." > > > > To be clear, if a patch was posted on the 7th and merged on the 10th, it > > may be -1'd and reverted until the 14th. > > > > With this process patches can be merged just as fast as before, but it > also > > allows for committers with a more holistic or deeper understanding of a > > part of Storm to prevent unnecessary complexity. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> I am fine with this. I mostly want a starting point, and we can adjust > >> things from there is need be. > >> - Bobby > >> > >> > >> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 8:39 PM, Harsha <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for putting this together. Proposed bylaws looks good to > >> me. -Harsha > >> > >> > >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 02:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > >>> Associated pull request can be found here: > >>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/419 > >>> > >>> > >>> This is another attempt at gaining consensus regarding adopting > >>> official bylaws for the Apache Storm project. The changes are minor > >>> and should be apparent in the pull request diff. > >>> > >>> In earlier discussions, there were concerns raised about certain > >>> actions requiring approval types that were too strict. In retrospect, > >>> and after reviewing the bylaws of other project (Apache Drill [1], > >>> Apache Hadoop [2]) as well as the official Glossary of Apache-Related > >>> Terms [3], it seems that some of those concerns were somewhat > >>> unfounded, and stemmed from the fact that different projects use > >>> different and inconsistent names for various approval types. > >>> > >>> In an effort to remedy the situation, I have modified the “Approvals” > >>> table to use the same names as the Glossary of Apache-Related Terms > >>> [3]. The table below provides a mapping between the terms used in this > >>> proposed update to the Apache Storm bylaws, the Apache Glossary, the > >>> Apache Drill bylaws, and the Apache Hadoop bylaws. > >>> > >>> > >>> | Proposed Storm Bylaws | Apache Glossary | Apache Drill | Apache > >>> | Hadoop | Definition | > >>> | > >> > -----------------------|--------------------|----------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| > >>> | Consensus Approval | Consensus Approval | Lazy Consensus | Consensus > >>> | Approval | 3 binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes | Majority > >>> | Approval | Majority Approval | Lazy Majority | Lazy Majority | At > >>> | least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes | Lazy > >>> | Consensus | Lazy Consensus | Lazy Approval | Lazy Consensus | No -1 > >>> | votes (‘silence gives assent’) | > >>> | 2/3 Majority | N/A | 2/3 Majority* | Lazy 2/3 Majority | At least 3 > >>> | +1 votes and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes | > >>> > >>> * The Apache Drill bylaws to not define “2/3 Majority” in the > >>> Approvals table, but it is used in the Actions table. > >>> > >>> Please keep these differences in terminology when comparing the > >>> proposed bylaws with those of other projects. > >>> > >>> I would like to use this DISCUSS thread as a forum for reaching > >>> consensus to approve the proposed bylaws and to discuss any changes > >>> needed to reach that point. If successful, the VOTE to officially > >>> adopt the bylaws should be a technicality and pass without dissent. > >>> > >>> -Taylor > >>> > >>> > >>> [1]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws > >>> [2]http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html > >>> [3]http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html Email had 1 > >>> attachment: > >> > >> > >>> * signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) > > > > > > > > -- > > Twitter: @nathanmarz > > http://nathanmarz.com > -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com
