No, but it speaks to whether the Hadoop bylaws can extend the Apache voting procedures and draw finer distinctions. For example, the Apache voting procedures only identify 3 types of votable issue, while the Hadoop bylaws identify 9 types of votable issues.
If we were forced to fit "development tools" into one of the three categories cited by the Apache voting procedures, it would be fitting a square peg in a round hole. Since we can instead look at the 9 categories provided by the Hadoop bylaws, we can acknowledge that "development tools" was an overlooked category. But in my opinion it certainly doesn't fit into the "code change" category. Tooling is a meta-issue regarding HOW we do what needs to be done. In this case, whether we allow a platform-independent solution, or force contributors to maintain parallel scripts in multiple platform-specific languages for no reason. --Matt On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > The apache voting process contradicts the Hadoop bylaws: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html says that only PMC members > can > > make binding votes on code modification issues, but > > http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html says that Committers can make > binding > > votes on them. Does that mean the Hadoop bylaws have to change? > > This may be a little atypical but I don't see any harm. The Hadoop > PMC is willing to respect the veto of any committer as binding. I'd > worry more if we tried to reduce vetoes to a subset of the PMC than > extend it to a superset. > > Do you think this is problematic? > > Doug >
