I'll make edits to the bylaw doc in accordance with the above. Please feel free to still comment here.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]>wrote: > There are a couple of spots in the proposed bylaws that imply, or call > for, details on how the project handles commits and code reviews. While > that process should be spelled out, I believe that the work is significant > enough that it should be refactored into its own effort, and the bylaws > merely refer to it. > > Here are the spots I found, which have also been commented upon in the doc. > > 1. Voting: -1 may be applied to a commit. > 2. Actions table: Code Change as lazy approval. > > I'm not saying the current state is correct or not, as it's just what was > present for ZK when Arshak made the copy. My suggestion is to replace the > statements in the bylaws with referral to our Commit and Review standards, > to be published later (hopefully not RSN [1]). > > Thoughts? > > [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=real+soon+now > > -- > | - - - > | Bill Havanki > | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions > | - - - > -- | - - - | Bill Havanki | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions | - - -
