Pull request updated. Here’s a link to the latest commit: https://github.com/ptgoetz/storm/commit/18a68a074570db01fc6377a269feb90ecda898ab
- Taylor On Feb 12, 2015, at 8:41 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > Great hear. I will update the pull request accordingly. > > -Taylor > > >> On Feb 12, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Derek Dagit <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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 >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
