I really like the Pig bylaws. I would suggest using it as a starting point
for ZooKeeper. One thing I would like to modify is the Committer section.
Pig's bylaws state that the committer becomes emeritus if they haven't
contributed in any form for 6 months. I would tighten that up and say if
they haven't been actively involved in reviewing or committing. (They are
after all committers.) I have made this change to the text.
The other change that I would like, and did not add, is for some of the
votes to have a requirement to pre-announce. Specifically for PMC,
committer, and release it would be nice to give a week or two notice that a
vote will be coming up, just so that interested parties don't miss it.
ben
here is the text:
Introduction
This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache ZooKeeper project
operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the project, who may
vote, how voting works, how conflicts are resolved, etc.
ZooKeeper is a project of the Apache Software Foundation The foundation
holds the copyright on Apache code including the code in the ZooKeeper
codebase. The foundation FAQ explains the operation and background of the
foundation.
ZooKeeper is typical of Apache projects in that it operates under a set of
principles, known collectively as the Apache Way. If you are new to Apache
development, please refer to the Incubator project for more information on
how Apache projects operate.
Roles and Responsibilities
Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may perform
within the project. The roles are defined in the following sections.
Users
The most important participants in the project are people who use our
software. The majority of our contributors start out as users and guide
their development efforts from the user's perspective.
Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
contributors in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on mailing
lists and user support forums.
Contributors
All of the volunteers who are contributing time, code, documentation, or
resources to the ZooKeeper Project. A contributor that makes sustained,
welcome contributions to the project may be invited to become a committer,
though the exact timing of such invitations depends on many factors.
Committers
The project's committers are responsible for the project's technical
management. Committers have access to a specified set of subproject's
subversion repositories. Committers on subprojects may cast binding votes on
any technical discussion regarding that subproject.
Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus by
his or her own declaration or by not reviewing patches or commiting patches
to the project for over six months. An emeritus committer may request
reinstatement of commit access from the PMC which must be approved by lazy
consensus of the active PMC members.
Commit access can be revoked by a unanimous vote of all the active PMC
members (except the committer in question if he or she is also a PMC
member).
All Apache committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
Committer FAQ which provides more details on the requirements for
committers.
A committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be invited
to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not limited to
code. It can also include code review, helping out users on the mailing
lists, documentation, etc.
Project Management Committee
The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
oversight of the Apache ZooKeeper codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
include
Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache ZooKeeper project. In
particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
repository, mailing lists, websites.
Speaking on behalf of the project.
Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
Nominating new PMC members and committers.
Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a lazy
consensus of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered emeritus by his
or her own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the project for
over six months. An emeritus member may request reinstatement to the PMC,
which must be approved by a lazy consensus of active PMC members.
Membership of the PMC can be revoked by an unanimous vote of all the active
PMC members other than the member in question.
The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an office
holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache ZooKeeper)
and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of the
projects within the scope of the ZooKeeper PMC. The chair reports to the
board quarterly on developments within the ZooKeeper project.
When the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a new
chair using lazy consensus, but the decision must be ratified by the Apache
board.
Decision Making
Within the ZooKeeper project, different types of decisions require different
forms of approval. For example, the previous section describes several
decisions which require 'lazy consensus' approval. This section defines how
voting is performed, the types of approvals, and which types of decision
require which type of approval.
Voting
Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
development mailing list u...@zookeeper.apache.org. Where necessary, PMC
voting may take place on the private ZooKeeper PMC mailing list
priv...@zookeeper.apache.org. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line
starting with [VOTE]. Votes may contain multiple items for approval and
these should be clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the
vote mail. Voting may take four flavors.
Vote Meaning
+1 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' In general, this
vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in 'making it
happen'.
+0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under consideration
to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to help.
-0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action going
ahead.
-1 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the
veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be
appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action.
All participants in the ZooKeeper project are encouraged to show their
agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding. Non binding
votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
perception of an action in the wider ZooKeeper community. For PMC decisions,
only the votes of PMC members are binding.
Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the ZooKeeper
codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a rare
occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they are still
patches before the code is committed.
Approvals
These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
require different types of approvals.
Approval Type Definition
Consensus For this to pass, all voters with binding votes must vote
and there can be no binding vetoes (-1). Consensus votes are rarely required
due to the impracticality of getting all eligible voters to cast a vote.
Lazy Consensus Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no binding
vetoes.
Lazy Majority A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more
binding +1 votes that -1 votes.
Lazy Approval An action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a
-1 vote is received, at which time, depending on the type of action, either
lazy majority or lazy consensus approval must be obtained.
2/3 Majority Some actions require a 2/3 majority of active committers or
PMC members to pass. Such actions typically affect the foundation of the
project (e.g. adopting a new codebase to replace an existing product). The
higher threshold is designed to ensure such changes are strongly supported.
To pass this vote requires at least 2/3 of binding vote holders to vote +1.
Vetoes
A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must be
accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The
validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a
binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto -
merely that the veto is valid.
If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting the
veto to withdraw his or her veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, the action
that has been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.
Actions
This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those who
have binding votes over the action. It also specifies the minimum length of
time that a vote must remain open, measured in business days. In general
votes should not be called at times when it is known that interested members
of the project will be unavailable.
Action Description Approval Binding Votes Minimum Length
Code Change A change made to a codebase of the project and committed by a
committer. This includes source code, documentation, website content, etc.
Lazy approval (not counting the vote of the contributor), moving to lazy
majority if a -1 is received Active committers 1
Release Plan Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan
also nominates a Release Manager. Lazy majority Active committers 3
Product Release When a release of one of the project's products is ready,
a vote is required to accept the release as an official release of the
project. Lazy Majority Active PMC members 3
Adoption of New Codebase When the codebase for an existing, released
product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote fails
to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This also covers the
creation of new sub-projects within the project. 2/3 majority Active
PMC members 6
New Committer or reinstatement When a new committer is proposed for the
project. Lazy consensus Active PMC members 3
New PMC Member or reinstatement When a committer is proposed for the PMC.
Lazy consensus Active PMC members 3
Committer Removal When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such
actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
Consensus Active PMC members (excluding the committer in question if a
member of the PMC). 6
PMC Member Removal When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note: Such
actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
Consensus Active PMC members (excluding the member in question). 6
Modifying Bylaws Modifying this document. 2/3 majority Active PMC
members 6
