I've now started a separate discussion thread in common-dev@, titled
"[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote". If it achieves
consensus, I'll put it to a vote to so change the bylaws.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "release plan" vote is not binding in any way. Nobody "lost" a
> vote, or risks having an outcome reversed, because there are no
> consequences to these exercises.
> Konstantin, I've been trying to tell you for more than a week that you
> can go forward without anyone's blessing or consent. There are no
> precedents, because the "release plan" vote has been a formality until
> now, and I don't know of any other projects that even bother with it.
> Most of our committers and PMC members didn't even know who was
> eligible to vote on it, because we usually ignore it. What *does*
> matter is the majority vote of the PMC on the release artifact. While
> we under-defined what the release plan means, we have zero ambiguity
> on when a release artifact becomes real.
> In the discussion, you were offered a minor release series, help
> selecting patches from branch-2, and every administrative barrier was
> removed from your path. Instead of taking this and running with it,
> you continued to press for... I don't know what. Please decide how
> you're going to move a development branch- any of them- forward and
> start working on it. There is nothing to "win" in these threads.
> This has exposed a bug in our bylaws, which we can fix.
> Right now, these "votes" are confusing everybody and stalling the
> project. I don't care who comes up with 2.0.5-beta, whether it's part
> of 2.1, or if we create 3.0. Any committer who wants to offer an
> candidate needs to demonstrate that they have a non-trivial,
> non-sectarian proportion of the community behind it by (1) creating
> the artifact (2) passing a PMC vote to make that artifact a release.
> It's that simple.
> With respect to the board: they are not parents, and we are not
> children. Neither are they interested or equipped to tell us how to
> partition releases of Hadoop. This is routine development, we are
> failing at it, but we will recover by eliminating this pointless
> ritual and getting back to producing software. -C
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BCC: general@
> > Since we recognize now that this is a vote to overrule previous decision,
> > I am referring to Vinod's note on general
> > *http://s.apache.org/h7x*
> > should this be brought to the attention of the Board?
> > I don't remember any precedents of this kind in Hadoop history.
> > But other projects may have had such experience.
> > A clarification on categorizing this action and on voting practices
> > from ASF may help.
> > Thanks,
> > --Konstantin
> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >> Arun,
> >> I am glad I at least convinced you to finally announce your release plan
> >> and put it into vote.
> >> Even though it is to overrule the vote that just completed, which you
> >> against and lost, well - Twice.
> >> I am glad you removed the NFS feature from the list proposed earlier.
> >> I think this vote is late. The lazy consensus on that issue has been
> >> reached.
> >> I don't see the basis for the new vote,
> >> and it is not clear what action you seek to approve.
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Konstantin
> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Folks,
> >>> A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the
> >>> recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the
> >>> itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc.
> >>> IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current
> >>> stability of 3 features under debate etc.) have been lost in the