On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 19 Jul 2014, at 10:46 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:23 AM, 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 > > > > > > Where is the short version? Are people really expecting that other > > will want to contribute to the project if they have to read this long, > > very procedural document, with a matrix i can barely read except if i > > put my browser in full screen? > > As far as I understand Joan, the short version is the bold sentences > throughout the page. > > “**If this is your first time through this document, read this > introduction, > then all the bolded text for a summary of the bylaws.**” > > > > I am not saying we should not have a detailed description somewhere of > > the procedures (which already exist in the apache website and could be > > linked), but these "bylaws" are not very engaging neither friendly. > > I don't think I am welcomed if i had to read that stuff just to > > interact with the project. > > The bylaws are by definition a specialisation of the guidelines the ASF > gives us. We have been discussing this specific point, I don’t understand > why it is raised again. > > > > Compare with > > > > http://community.ubuntu.com/contribute/ > > and http://community.ubuntu.com/community-structure/ > > > > Imo the "bylaws" should be replaced by something in this vein. Ie a > > document engaging the community to contribute and say what are means, > > describe some procedures. Not a thing looking like rules of procedure. > > These serve a different purpose. We can totally have a separate > introduction > document “How to contribute to Apache CouchDB” as well, and we should, but > that is separate from the bylaws. > > > what are the purpose of this bylaws if it's not a set of rules for the contributions > > I think this a point that people should consider when they will vote > > on the current proposal. Friendliness and simplicity are true key > > points when it's about collaboration. > > > > About the current document I have a couple of remarks: > > > > - Lazy concensus definition should be more precise. A definition like: > > "When you are convinced that you know what the community would like to > > see happen, you can simply assume that you already have consensus and > > get on with the work. We call this lazy consensus. You don't have to > > insist that people discuss or approve your plan, and you certainly > > don't need to call a vote. Just assume your plan is okay unless > > someone says otherwise." . What is a consensus? > > Consensus is agreement, added that in parenthesis. > > > > > - Votes. These are very binary votes. 0, 1 and the negatives but we > > miss the fractions. Like defined there: > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#expressing-votes-1-0-1-and-fractions > > > > It should be added imo. > > This is addressed: “Occasionally people choose to vote with larger amounts > to indicate > strong feelings, or in fractional amounts to convey support or > disagreement without the > full weight of a +1 or -1 vote.” > > I’m in favour of the simplified list of votes, for the same simplicity > reasons you > state above :) > > > - there should be a reference to the code of conduct in Discussion so > > people knows what the rules the conduct. > > Are you referring to this section from the PMC explanation? “This includes > strict > hat wearing, equitable decision making, and exemplary conduct.” > No, just adding that discussion should be done following the code of conduct.
