New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW ONLY] APEXCORE-321 bylaws draft #22

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@tweise
Contributor

tweise commented Mar 15, 2016

This is the draft for project bylaws, to be finalized after graduation.

@chinmaykolhatkar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

What is the parent page for bylaws page to be redirected from?

Contributor

chinmaykolhatkar commented Mar 16, 2016

What is the parent page for bylaws page to be redirected from?

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
The project’s Committers are responsible for the project’s technical
management. All committers have write access to the project’s source
repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

I was under impression that PPMC members have binding votes. Is this changed?

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

I was under impression that PPMC members have binding votes. Is this changed?

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
the active PMC members. A Committer may request removal of their commit privileges
by their own declaration. A committer will be considered
“emeritus/inactive” by not contributing in any form to the project for
over 1 year. An emeritus committer may request reinstatement of commit access from

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Just being picky here.. Can we make this "one year" instead of "1 year"... Just to make it consistent with what is there in "PMC" section.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Just being picky here.. Can we make this "one year" instead of "1 year"... Just to make it consistent with what is there in "PMC" section.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
by their own declaration. A committer will be considered
“emeritus/inactive” by not contributing in any form to the project for
over 1 year. An emeritus committer may request reinstatement of commit access from
the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to lazy consensus of active PMC members

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

"...lazy consensus of active PMC members."

Fullstop (.) missing.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

"...lazy consensus of active PMC members."

Fullstop (.) missing.

<tr class="a">
<td>-0</td>
<td>This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with the

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Should the voter saying "-0" also tell why its not a positive vote or why the voter does not agree similar to veto vote?

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Should the voter saying "-0" also tell why its not a positive vote or why the voter does not agree similar to veto vote?

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
</table>
All participants in the Apex project are encouraged to show their agreement with
or against a particular action by voting. For technical decisions, only the votes

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

The sentence "For technical decisions..." highlights a different meaning of binding votes in a certain context. Can this be made bold or highlighted in a certain way? (not sure bold is appropriate in bylaws).

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

The sentence "For technical decisions..." highlights a different meaning of binding votes in a certain context. Can this be made bold or highlighted in a certain way? (not sure bold is appropriate in bylaws).

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
<td>Lazy Majority</td>
<td>A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1
votes that -1 votes.</td>

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Should this be "than" instead of "that"?

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Should this be "than" instead of "that"?

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Does this mean binding +1 should be > binding+non-binding -1?

So, if there are 4 binding +1 and 5 non-binding -1 votes, does that mean the voting failed?

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Does this mean binding +1 should be > binding+non-binding -1?

So, if there are 4 binding +1 and 5 non-binding -1 votes, does that mean the voting failed?

This comment has been minimized.

@justinmclean

justinmclean Mar 18, 2016

Member

Only binding votes (+1/-1) count. However if there is a number of -1 non binding votes the (P)PMC should probably take notice of that. Also note people can change their vote once they have voted, so it OK to vote -1 on something after voting +1 if someone points out a issue.

@justinmclean

justinmclean Mar 18, 2016

Member

Only binding votes (+1/-1) count. However if there is a number of -1 non binding votes the (P)PMC should probably take notice of that. Also note people can change their vote once they have voted, so it OK to vote -1 on something after voting +1 if someone points out a issue.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
<td>A change made to a codebase of the project and committed by a committer.
This includes source code, documentation, website content, etc.</td>
<td>Lazy approval and then Lazy consensus.</td>

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Is this "Lazy approval and if required Lazy consensus"?

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Is this "Lazy approval and if required Lazy consensus"?

This comment has been minimized.

@justinmclean

justinmclean Mar 18, 2016

Member

Shoddy just be "Lazy consensus" I think but in most case consensus is not really required except for large changes. Any commit can be easily reverted if it causes an issues.

@justinmclean

justinmclean Mar 18, 2016

Member

Shoddy just be "Lazy consensus" I think but in most case consensus is not really required except for large changes. Any commit can be easily reverted if it causes an issues.

These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions require
different types of approvals:
<table border="0" class="table table-striped">

This comment has been minimized.

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Would it make more sense to order this table content from Strict to Relaxed voting?

@chinmaykolhatkar

chinmaykolhatkar Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

Would it make more sense to order this table content from Strict to Relaxed voting?

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Apex was created by a
resolution of the board of the Apache Software Foundation on ***TBD***. The
PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight of the
Apache Apex codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC include:

This comment has been minimized.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

I would change this to "community" instead of codebase. The PMC is responsible for the whole community operations (like who are committers) not just for the code.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

I would change this to "community" instead of codebase. The PMC is responsible for the whole community operations (like who are committers) not just for the code.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
* Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project
Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a lazy
consensus of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered

This comment has been minimized.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

Note, the board must also approve new PMC members. They must also approve the removal of any PMC members (line 95 below).

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

Note, the board must also approve new PMC members. They must also approve the removal of any PMC members (line 95 below).

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
* Speaking on behalf of the project
* Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project
* Nominating new PMC members and committers
* Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project

This comment has been minimized.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

It would add a line here that the PMC is responsible to keep the board informed of the status of the project, generally through the VP. I know you cover that some below, but if the VP is absent or not performing his/her duties the board will look to the PMC to step in.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

It would add a line here that the PMC is responsible to keep the board informed of the status of the project, generally through the VP. I know you cover that some below, but if the VP is absent or not performing his/her duties the board will look to the PMC to step in.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
development mailing list (<a class="externalLink" href=
"mailto:dev@apex.apache.org)">dev@apex.apache.org)</a>. Where necessary, PMC voting

This comment has been minimized.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

I would change "Where necessary" to "When involving personnel or other confidential matters" to make clear when it's necessary.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

I would change "Where necessary" to "When involving personnel or other confidential matters" to make clear when it's necessary.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/md/bylaws.md
<td>When a change is needed to the Project&rsquo;s By-Laws.</td>
<td>Lazy Consensus</td>

This comment has been minimized.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

Lazy consensus is fairly liberal for bylaws changes. You should discuss in the community whether you want 2/3 majority here.

@alanfgates

alanfgates Mar 17, 2016

Lazy consensus is fairly liberal for bylaws changes. You should discuss in the community whether you want 2/3 majority here.

@tweise

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tweise

tweise Mar 22, 2016

Contributor

Incorporated feedback.

Contributor

tweise commented Mar 22, 2016

Incorporated feedback.

@tweise tweise changed the title from APEXCORE-321 bylaws draft to [REVIEW ONLY] APEXCORE-321 bylaws draft Apr 11, 2016

@tweise tweise closed this Aug 15, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment