Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache seems to be that we shouldn't have them. I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project, no need to over-regulate things. Regards, Matthias On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Josh Wills wrote: > Agree that the hadoop model has too much overhead for where we are at as a > project. It seems like the major difference between Pig and Zookeeper is > whether or not we have a fixed term for the PMC chair: Pig has a one-year > term, Zookeeper has the same chair until the chair resigns. Is that right, > or did I miss something else? > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Matthias Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > according to the Board's graduation resolution, we have been "tasked > > with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open > > development and increased participation in the Apache Crunch Project". > > It would be good to get this done until our first board report is due > > in two weeks. > > > > It seems to me that most Apache projects use slight variations of the > > same document [1][2][3] ([3] seems to be the nicest). I suggest we do > > the same, maybe modify the code change rule to incorporate our peer > > review process for larger changes. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Regards, > > Matthias > > > > [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html > > [2] http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html > > [3] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > > > -- > Director of Data Science > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com> > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
