Personally, while not voting -1, I still don't quite agree that pushing
the first draft of a document to a successful vote that has dissent from
more than one PMC member.

To my knowledge, there is no rush to release such a document, so it
doesn't make sense to me to release such a document to just turn around
and make an amendment to it. Let's get it right the first time and not
set a precedent for ignoring the concerns. Community comes first.

Presently, my biggest concern is that there is still some ambiguity
about the lazy approval of code changes that John initial brought up. I
haven't thought enough about the majority versus consensus rules, but my
first impression is, that with good faith, this isn't a big concern that
needs to be hashed up front.

Lastly, I want to applaud Bill for stepping up to spearhead this. The
frustration with this process, akin to that which we face for every
release, is unavoidable. No, the community as a whole does not always
(ever?) read everything up front, and that is the difficulty in working
as a group. However, I do not feel like just because someone missed the
"preferred" time window to voice a concern means that those concerns are
no longer valid at the given moment. Just as we wouldn't treat an issue
found in an RC during the last hour of the vote differently than an
issue found before the RC was made (everyone would much rather the
latter always be the case), discussion that was raised late in the game
is just as important as discussion raised before the approval vote.

On 4/3/14, 8:14 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB