Here goes, via email: "bolded text for" (formatting error?)
"copyrighted by" (the original "copyright" here is more correct I believe) "will be supported by a healthy community over time" -- was originally "seen to by", meaning, code will be produced by the community. I believe this edit changes the meaning "taken on those mailing lists" -> "taken on the mailing lists" "A contributor is someone who adds value, content or supports the project in some way." -- was originally "is contributing to". I don't understand why this has changed. There's no need to clarify, perfectly fine to just say a contributor is someone who contributes. It's a simple definition because it's a simple concept. No need to complicate it. "Community" -- would add "(community management, marketing, etc.)" "(which includes management, design, UX, branding, marketing...)" -> " (blogging, design, UX, branding, etc.)" "(includes globalisation/internationalisation and examples)" -> "(docs, examples, l10n/i18n, etc.)" "Managing confidentially-reported security issues" -> "Managing security issues" Cut " to drive most of these tasks as they arise." "uses the Apache STeVe approach" -> "uses Apache STeVe" "are made on our mailing lists via" -- cut "on our mailing lists", redundant info "If lazy consensus cannot be reached and discussion does not result in general agreement on a course of action, move to a vote." -- seems to be a repetition of the preceding para? Would also replace "general agreement" with "consensus" so we're using the same term throughout "If a change is made to project assets that a committer determines will adversely impact the integrity of the project, committers can exercise veto power." -- disagree with this sentence. Too broad. We need to very carefully think about what we are going to allow vetoes on. When we discussed this on IRC, I suggested it was any code changes to a shippable branch of a source tree. I stand by that. But think we should have this discussion on the ML and agree on it before moving a summary to the bylaws. Most of the above is minor. The last point is a major issue though. Thanks again for picking this up and driving it Joan! On 19 July 2014 21:58, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > Joan, how would you prefer my feedback? Edits made directly to the > doc, or via email? There are some things I'd like to change. > > On 17 July 2014 06:23, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >> After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB >> IRC meeting today, I will be driving the bylaws and CoC through to votes >> and formal adoption. >> >> Based on unaddressed comments in the previous mailing list discussion, I >> have updated the proposed bylaws text. Those updates are here: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017 >> >> Changes made since the last version can be viewed here: >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=40511017&selectedPageVersions=70&selectedPageVersions=69 >> >> The primary changes were: >> >> 1. Bolded text now serves as a intro guide for new participants and >> highlights the important points of which they should be aware. >> This should make absorbing the long document easier for newcomers. >> >> 2. Reworked text in the veto section to clarify misinterpretations. >> There *are* some semantic changes here, so please re-read this >> section carefully. >> >> 3. Compromise on the COPDOC section: acronym removed, concept remains. >> >> 4. Various grammar edits for clarity. >> >> At this point, the bylaws are mostly stable, but there may remain some >> tweaks to the text necessary to ensure they match how we have been >> running the project for some time now. We (the PMC) acknowledge that >> they are not perfect, but we do not want to let the perfect to be the >> enemy of the good (thanks to Voltaire), so we're moving ahead with them >> in the state they're in. >> >> Further, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes or imprecise >> language therein, as a weapon against others acting in good faith is >> neither within the spirit of the bylaws themselves nor considered >> acceptable behaviour - and will be dealt with accordingly by the PMC. >> >> It is my intent to call a formal vote on these bylaws as of Monday, June >> 21. PLEASE take the time to make a final read-through and get any >> corrections to me before then. >> >> Per the proposed terms in the bylaws, this non-technical vote will >> be by majority approval with no vetos allowed. Further, ALL ACTIVE >> COMMITTERS are respectfully asked to cast their vote at that time. >> >> -Joan Touzet > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
