Everyone is free to propose changes to the by-laws. If you want to make a patch and call a vote on it, by all means, go ahead. :) That sot of stuff is a good way to become a committer in the first place. ;)
On 24 July 2013 18:34, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- NS
