I don't think that we need to cover all situations in the bylaws in the early versions. We can amend as situations arise.

From: "Sean Busbey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "dev@accumulo apache. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 12:29:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Define CTR in Bylaws

I've spent some time dealing with hostiles in internet communities. Based
on my experience, I would strongly recommend against gearing our bylaws
towards guarding against actors we disagree with.

1) It presumes a conflict oriented community

2) It presumes we will have community members acting maliciously

3) It presumes any guard we come up with would ultimately work

The fact of the matter is that if we are unfortunate enough to have someone
who wants to be disruptive, they will find a way to be disruptive. Defining
more elaborate rulesets to try to constrain them will ultimately only
result in giving them more ammunition to work with.

It is generally best to provide a reasonably loose set of community
standards and then rely on the communities shared interest.


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:19 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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