+1 On Aug 17, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> Per the discussion thread: http://s.apache.org/XkY > > Should HDFS and MapReduce committers lists be combined and all > subsequent committers on either of these two projects be granted karma > in the other? > > If the vote passes, current and future committers to MapReduce and > HDFS will gain commit rights in both projects. Commit rights to Common > are unaffected. > > Without bylaws, a 2/3 majority for a committer import seems like a > reasonable bar, given that adding an individual committer requires > consensus. > > ---- > > Owen has started a separate voting thread, proposing to define the > Common committer list as the union of HDFS and MapReduce committers > (vote A), so I tried to write this (vote B) so it would not conflict. > As I'm reading it: > > A passes, B passes: One can become a committer on HDFS or MapReduce. > Commit to either implies commit on HDFS, MR, and Common. > A passes, B fails: One can become a committer on HDFS or MapReduce. > Commit to either implies commit on Common, only. > A fails, B passes: One can become a committer on HDFS, MapReduce, or > Common. Commit to to HDFS/MR implies converse, but individual > appointments to Common continue. > A fails, B fails: Committers continue to be appointed individually to > HDFS, MapReduce, and Common. > > In no scheme would commit rights to Common imply commit rights to > either HDFS or MapReduce, I guess. -C
