+1 -- Derek
----- Original Message ----- From: Bobby Evans <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt Apache Storm Bylaws +1 - Bobby On Friday, February 13, 2015 1:10 AM, Nathan Marz <[email protected]> wrote: +1 On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:57 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com
