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

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> [DISCUSS] Proposed bylaws for Hadoop


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed bylaws for Hadoop
Thanks for the explanation Owen. The HttpComponents bylaws define
"majority" as "A majority decision passes if there is a minimum of
three binding +1 votes and at least 75% of the binding votes are +1."
So this is not the same as the 50% majority defined the the draft.
(Actually, I notice that only "lazy majority" is defined, not
"majority" in the approvals section.) I suggest we make this stronger.
By way of comparison, the recently enacted bylaws for Pig
(http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html) have consensus, for example.

Also, Pig has a minimum length of time for each action, rather than
the same fixed number for each. Might be worth considering.

Cheers,
Tom

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>
>> With the exception of these two bullets, these bylaws seem equivalent to
>> those posted by several other projects.  Most projects use consensus-but-one
>> for committer and PMC removal.  Was this change intentional or accidental?
>
> It was intentional. In my survey of other Apache project's bylaws, I was
> originally surprised to find some such as HTTP Components
> (http://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html) that use majority votes for removing
> people. However, the question is whether a small minority should be able to
> drain a project's attention and energy.
>
> For anyone who hasn't already seen it, there is an outstanding presentation
> on "Open Source Projects and Poisonous People" that was done by Brian
> Fitzpatrick and Ben Collins-Sussman. I'd highly recommend it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE. The presentation's central
> thesis is that a project's attention and energy are its most valuable
> resource. People that cause long emotional debates without contributing to
> the project are extremely destructive to the project and must occasionally
> be asked to leave.
>
> Of course everyone hopes to avoid these cases, but the question is whether
> the project should have the mechanism to fix itself. I feel that it must.
>
> -- Owen
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