Yes it was that discussion which led me to add "should the need arise". But happy to remove it altogether. I assume it's implicit that the PMC could enact project specific bylaws if the need arose? On 23 Oct 2015 4:30 am, "Konstantin Boudnik" <c...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, I didn't see this thread on time, so here's copy-paste of my comment > from > the vote thread: > > Let's get rid of > > "RESOLVED, that should the need arise for project-specific bylaws, that the > Apache Groovy PMC be tasked with the creation of such bylaws intended to > encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache Groovy > Project; and be it further" > > as creating project-special bylaws shouldn't be a requirement for a new > PMC. > ASF bylaws are fine for pretty much all of them. There was a lengthy > discussion > about it on comdev the other day. > > Thanks, > Cos > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it > > in this thread. > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > ,...to enable > > > the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the > > > realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,.. > > > > That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis? > > > > > ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is > responsible for > > > the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and > be it > > > further.. > > > > "the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first > > paragraph probably. > > > > > ...As well as the following committers... > > > > Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to > > make those folks committers on the new TLP right away. > > > > -Bertrand >
