Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # general - [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta


+
Arun C Murthy 2013-05-15, 17:57
+
Nathan Roberts 2013-05-16, 17:36
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-17, 20:10
+
Chris Douglas 2013-05-18, 23:22
+
Matt Foley 2013-05-21, 21:13
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-05-21, 08:51
Chris,

I find you are contradicting yourself within this message and with some
other of yours.

But I want to address only one thing here

> This has exposed a bug in our bylaws, which we can fix.

This could be a bug, and we may need to fix it. But until then it is a
bylaw,
which is the only rule we have to come to an agreement if we disagree.
If we both respect the rules we can come to an agreement. If not and
people start forcing their way by saying the rule is wrong - let's ignore
it today, or by conducting an infinite chain of counter votes - this creates
chaos.

Thanks,
--Konstantin
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
> were
> >> 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
> just
> >> 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]