I'm not a committer so I don't want really to take this one on the Bylaws side. :-)
Matt On 7/24/13 1:19 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >Nope. Sorry. Feel free to run with it. If not, I can see about doing >another vote in the next few days. > > >On 24 July 2013 18:02, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Noah, >> >> Did you ever review / report / re-vote this? >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> >> On 6/25/13 11:17 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >Thanks for the feedback, Matt. >> > >> >Anyone else got any feedback on this? Might cut a new vote. >> > >> > >> >On 24 June 2013 05:12, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Noah, >> >> >> >> I agree that there needs to be a delineation. Here's my option on >> >>wording >> >> describing what is non-technical: >> >> >> >> +3.4.2. Non-Technical Decisions >> >> >> >> +Non-technical decisions should normally be made by the entire >>community >> >> using >> >> +discussion-lead consensus-building, and not through formal voting. >> >> + >> >> +Non-technical decisions are defined as a decision that do not >>directly >> >> affect >> >> +the code in any branch of the project. >> >> +Including coding, testing, documentation or management of the code >> >>base. >> >> + >> >> +Non-technical decisions can be made on whichever project mailing >>list >> >>is >> >> most >> >> +appropriate. >> >> + >> >> +Non-technical decisions cannot be vetoed, but if there is strong >> >> opposition >> >> +a formal vote can be used to resolve the dispute. >> >> + >> >> +If a formal vote is started for a non-technical decision, the vote >> >>will be >> >> held >> >> +as a lazy 2/3 majority of active committers. >> >> + >> >> +Any user, contributor, committer or PMC member can initiate a >> >> non-technical >> >> +decision making process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Matt Mullins >> >> Cloud Platforms Implementation Engineer >> >> Worldwide Cloud Services Citrix System, Inc. >> >> +1 (407) 920-1107 Office/Cell Phone >> >> matt.mull...@citrix.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/20/13 11:59 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Less terse follow up... ;) >> >> > >> >> >Note that our current by-laws effectively state that any technical >> >> >decision >> >> >needs to happen on dev@. I am just clarifying the intent. >> >> > >> >> >Note also that we currently do not define what a "technical >>decision" >> >>is, >> >> >but it is my opinion that this is any decision which relates to the >> >> >CloudStack source code. (We might want to make it a little broader >>than >> >> >that. Open to suggestions.) >> >> > >> >> >Almost everything we do involves technology. Whether that is editing >> >>the >> >> >website, wiki, JIRA, mailing lists, etc. That doesn't mean that >>those >> >> >activities are "technical activities" or involve "technical >>decisions". >> >> > >> >> >Do you think our by-laws need a section clarifying technical vs. >> >> >non-technical? What should it say? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On 20 June 2013 15:14, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013, at 08:21 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >> >> > Devs, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I would like to call a vote on the following modification to our >> >> >>by-laws. >> >> >> > This is in response to the >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Summary of changes: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > * Addition of "3.4.2. Non-Technical Decisions" section. This >> >>specifies >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > non-technical decisions can be made on any appropriate list >>(i.e. >> >> >> > marketing@) >> >> >> >> >> >> Erm. Does this mean that marketing can't make any technical >>decisions >> >> >> about the Web site, for instance? >> >> >> >> >> >> I think this needs to be better worded. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> >> jzb >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Joe Brockmeier >> >> >> j...@zonker.net >> >> >> Twitter: @jzb >> >> >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >NS >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >NS >> >> > > >-- >NS
