Feedback on the DRAFT 7 version as posted at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-07.html
Section 2: Clarification needed "Only a Contributor may submit anything larger than a simple patch." This is too vague. If making a reference to a term, then that term needs to be self evident or defined and the meaning of a "simple patch" is unfortunately not self evident. Section 7: Missing mechanism or authority to revoke commit access. If the Project Lead lacks the authority to revoke commit access, then who has that authority? Section 7: Unclear community contribution process What mechanism or procedure exists for developers not affiliated with the cathedral outlined in the document, to provide patches and retain recognition for those contributions? A framing example should the question as stated not be recognizable to you follows. A common procedure employed by Committers of projects which manage their artifacts in the Git Version Control System (VCS) is to leverage the concept of pulling changeset contributions from developers not affiliated with the project. Through this simple concept, to not only push to a master repository, but also to pull from unofficial project branches created by non-project members, Committers are awarded a very efficient and straight forward process for incorporating outside changes they deem worthy and which meet their project's specific criteria for inclusion. Recognition is in the given example both awarded and also retained through VCS metadata, associated with each changeset and is incorporated when and if a Committer deems the contribution fitting, into the annals of project history upon his or her decision to push the changeset onto the official project artifact repository (VCS repository), Section 13: Clarification or rephrasing needed "Only three unsuccessful appeals by any particular Governing Board member are permitted in any twelve-month period." The sentence needs at best rephrasing, at worst be expanded. Was the word "unsuccessful" included by mistake? If not then the sentence makes no sense. An appeal raised has an indeterminate qualification prior to judgement and only after it has been judged can its qualification status be determined as successful or unsuccessful. If you meant to convey that each board member may object at most three times per year to a technical or release decision made by the OpenJDK Leader, then I believe the rationale or at least the logic behind it needs to be expanded because it is not intuitive nor understandable to a reader such as I, in contrast with the rest of the document's edicts.
