Mike, > At a minimum, the community needs to establish that this feature and its > side-effects are understood by more than just the one smart guy that wrote > it and the other smart guy who isn't a fan. Then, those who understand the > feature and its side-effects need to publicly weigh in on both the value > and the timing (1.9, FSFS rather than FSX, etc.) of the change.
> How do you manage this discussion in the simplest way possible? Call for > a formal vote on removing the feature, asking that the extreme +1/-1 votes > be presented only by folks who both understand the feature and have reviewed > the code. (Seems only fair to allow the status quo to remain the default > action.) Give the vote at least 72 weekday hours to allow time for code > review, and then put this topic behind you/us and move on. Since no one objected to this approach, I assume that there is a lazy consensus and I'm going to start a formal vote regarding the log-addressing feature early next week. I think it would be fair to call a 'Consensus Approval' vote [1,2] for leaving the log-addressing feature in the trunk. In other words, it will be required at least three binding '+1' votes (and no vetos) to leave the code in trunk. It will be also assumed that: a) +1 votes could be presented only by folks who both understand the log-addressing feature and have reviewed the code. b) a concrete technical justification showing why the change is bad (allows data to be corrupted, negatively affects performance, etc. ) should be provided for a '-1' vote. Effectively, this vote will be similar to our 3-vote policy for branches but made a little later. What do you think about this plan for vote? [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval -- Ivan Zhakov
