This is a proposal to strike the code change action from the bylaws. This is being requested because there is substantial ambiguity about the standards being declared / whether this should be part of our bylaws and, until these are clarified, should be removed.
Specifically, it is the following line which shall be removed
Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project. This includes source code, documentation, website content, etc.Lazy approval, moving to consensus approval upon vetoActive committers1 The current bylaws are visibile at
This vote will be open for 7 days, until 11 April 2014, 15:10 UTC.
Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the document body will be replaced with "This is version 2 of the bylaws," and the aforementioned line will be removed.
This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and more +1 than -1's.
[ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaw changes and accept them for the Apache Accumulo project." [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed bylaw changes, but accept them for the Apache Accumulo project." [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaw changes and do not accept them for the Apache Accumulo project because..."
All participants in the Accumulo project are encouraged to vote. For technical decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding. Non-binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the perception of an action across the wider Accumulo community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
-Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Please refer to the Accumulo commit and review standard for details. +See the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html) for more details on the mechanics of voting.
+<a name="CTR"></a> +## Commit Then Review (CTR) + +Voting can also be applied to changes to the Accumulo codebase. Under the Commit Then Review policy, committers can make changes to the codebase without seeking approval beforehand, and the changes are assumed to be approved unless an objection is raised. Only if an objection is raised must a vote must take place on the code change. + +For some code changes, committers may wish to get feedback from the community before making the change. It is acceptable for a committer to seek approval before making a change if they so desire. + ## Approvals
These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions require different types of approvals. @@ -139,7 +146,7 @@ <tr><td>Majority Approval</td> <td>A majority approval vote passes with 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes than -1 votes.</td> <tr><td>Lazy Approval (or Lazy Consensus)</td> - <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained.</td> + <td>An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either majority approval or consensus approval must be obtained. Lazy Approval can be either stated or assumed, as detailed on the [voting page](http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/voting.html).</td> </table>
## Vetoes @@ -152,6 +159,8 @@
This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of time that a vote must remain open, measured in days. In general, votes should not be called at times when it is known that interested members of the project will be unavailable.
+For Code Change actions, a committer may choose to employ assumed or stated Lazy Approval under the [CTR](#CTR) policy. Assumed Lazy Approval has no minimum length of time before the change can be made. + <table> <tr><th>Action</th> <th>Description</th> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I am a big supporter of the Apache notion that community is more important than code, our bylaws need to state _something_ about our policy around code changes.
I like Billie's suggested move to define CtR. It does a great job of removing the ambiguity people were concerned about in describing CtR without calling it CtR. I would +1 a vote on that diff. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Billie Rinaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Removing the line with no substitute is unacceptable. It can be implied that code changes are not subject to review and/or community approval, without the alluded-to commit and review standard in place. I doubt any Apache project's bylaws omit the line (checked: Hadoop, HBase, Hive, ZooKeeper, Pig).
It's better to work the commit and review policy, and then update the line accordingly.
Also, the rule has also been in place for less than two hours. Really. It hasn't even proven to be a problem yet. This drama is unbecoming to our community.
Bill H On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every single code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving others questioning whether it should not be there.
Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided it's best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until something a more sound can be put in place. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Bill Havanki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Bill Havanki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: I'm curious, are all of those projects RTC rather than CTR?
This isn't drama. It was obvious from the bylaws vote that changes needed to be made in the document, and this is prompt action addressing that need. (However, I would prefer to redirect the action towards clarification ...)
That's a reasonable argument, and I won't argue with you on it. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:56 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John,
I respectfully disagree. AFAICT from the previous thread, everyone agreed with you that the bylaw was not meant to imply that commits had to be up for review. I, for one, would not support a rogue committer attempting to leverage that line to claim we need to be RtC. I'm reasonably certain the rest of the community would do the same.
While we had consensus that _something_ needed to be done with this part of the bylaws, I don't think we had reached it on what the appropriate change was. It isn't productive for us to approach the bylaws as a coercive bludgeon that we must guard against abuse. We're a community first and foremost and we need to approach things with assumed good intent.
This vote has been superseded by the following successful vote to clarify CTR and the Code Change action: http://s.apache.org/iHC
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
Apache Lucene, Apache Solr and all other Apache Software Foundation project and their respective logos are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation.
Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash, and Beats are trademarks of Elasticsearch BV, registered in the U.S. and in other countries. This site and Sematext Group is in no way affiliated with Elasticsearch BV.
Service operated by Sematext