Or not! Some still believe that it is 'consensus' that is required for any procedural issues and think their -1 vote vetoes a change. That applies not only to on and off-boarding of new PMC Members and committers, but also to other policy changes.
Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:57 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 July 2015 at 10:24, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 6 July 2015 at 11:10, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Thank you, Branko. I feel (somewhat) sorry for you, when I read your > >> statement of being disgusted by the viewpoint of others on the matter. I > >> hope you recover from it soon. > >> > > > > Having been (and still be) in a project that have strong bylaws, limiting > > voting etc, > > I know what a PITA project bylaws can be. > > > > We fought for about 6 month to get the bylaws changed, to something there > > was > > total consensus about. The problem was that the bylaws could only be > changed > > with 2/3 +1 of all PMC, which is quite hard to reach when 1/2 of the PMC > no > > longer > > are active. > > As I recall, the main problem was that the local project bylaws had > been badly drafted, and were not clear, so needed to be changed. > > > > Bylaws can in some special cases help a project, but really should not be > > necesary. If > > our bylaws and policies are unprecise we should do something centrally > and > > not remedy > > this problem in 200 projects. > > Indeed. Had the local project bylaws not existed, I suspect there > would have been no problem in the case to which Jan refers. > > > rgds > > jan I. > > > > > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> > >> Pierre Smits > >> > >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > >> Services & Solutions for Cloud- > >> Based Manufacturing, Professional > >> Services and Retail & Trade > >> http://www.orrtiz.com > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > On 04.07.2015 18:34, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> > > Having done a cursory review of the incubator reports to the board > for > >> > > this year (January till May/June 2015), I found that only the SAMOA > >> > > podling reported working on a project set of bylaws, which without > >> > > knowing details could encompass and/or incorporate the code of > conduct. > >> > > >> > I find myself disgusted by this widespread assumption that each > project > >> > needs its own bylaws. WTF for? Are not ASF policies and practices > enough > >> > for everyone? What sort of bylaws could you possibly invent that are > >> > both a useful extension of these policies and practices /and/ are not > >> > applicable to other projects? > >> > > >> > Per-project bylaws are just a tool for fragmenting the ASF community, > in > >> > other words, they're a bad idea; paper-shuffling at its most useless. > >> > > >> > -- Brane > >> > > >> >
