I agree with Pat on this one. Ben, we do send out notices saying that we are cleaning up patches and if folks want to add to the release or think some jira should be there to voice there concern. I am not sure whats the significance of adding it to the bylaws? We can definitely add it to how to release section. What do you think?
Thanks mahadev On 1/12/11 3:40 PM, "Patrick Hunt" <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > Why don't we see if it becomes a problem and then add it to our > process rather than codifying in the bylaws. That work? > > Patrick > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Benjamin Reed <br...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >> i've added it to the cwiki: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/ZooKeeperBylawsProposal >> >> i don't mean the pre-annouce time to stretch things out. it's really to make >> sure the status updates go out. as we get more committers we need to make >> sure that there is a heads up that something is coming so that if someone >> will be on vacation or something like that we can take it into account. >> >> the idea is that we would say: hey next month we will be having a vote that >> way interested parties can watch out for it rather than going on vacation, >> coming back, and finding out that a blocker was overridden and a flawed >> release has gone out. >> >> ben >> >> On 01/12/2011 09:21 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ben, thanks for getting this rolling. Your committer suggestion >>> sounds fine to me. WRT to pre announcing, we are already giving >>> multiple days for a vote, also in the lead up to a release it should >>> be pretty obvious that one is imminent (we usually send out status >>> updates and such, plus the activity is pretty clear on the lists, >>> jira, svn, etc...). Adding more "pre announce time" will stretch out >>> the timeframes (and process) even longer, I'd rather we keep it as is >>> unless ppl think this is a big issue. >>> >>> Would you mind creating a proposal page on the cwiki similar to what Pig >>> did? >>> http://markmail.org/message/lvchbhoojpbwuxyx >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Benjamin Reed<br...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> >
