Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not procedural (simple majority) votes.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 10/3/13 6:23 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> On 10/2/13 12:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: >> >>>> Rather than a "rewrite", I suggest proposing small, incremental, >>>> reversible >>>> changes. Governance is easy to mess up. >>> >>> Well, "small, incremental" was hard to do given the significantly >>> different information this document must now convey. >> >> I appreciate the labor you've put in, but what we have here is akin to a >> big patch on highly sensitive mission-critical code for which there are no >> tests. I hope we can find a less costly way to integrate your efforts. > It is a big patch for sure, but I'm not sure I agree with equating it to > code. It is probably always going to be "just words" and I'm not sure you > can create tests. I think even laws don't have tests, they only have to > survive the reviews of the approvers and are always subject to revision > later. But hopefully the reviewers will think through whether the things > they thought were "right" about the old version are retained and whether > the things that were "wrong" have been removed, and new content appears to > be "right". > >> >>> I tried to keep as >>> much as possible yet incorporate feedback from Doug and Roy. >> >> Even if it was "wrong", people have been quoting from that document, >> referencing it and following its guidance for a long time. I'm quite >> irritated that something "wrong" has persisted for so long and has been >> used >> so many times as the basis for settling disputes. >> >> My take is that if that fundamental a document is "wrong", something is >> dreadfully "wrong" with how hard-won wisdom gets handed down at the ASF. >> >> Let's step back for a moment and reassess what we're trying to accomplish. >> We're starting with a voting document which is apparently "wrong" and >> trying >> to make it quasi-authoritative. But when we're finished turd polishing, >> there >> will still be no boundaries demarcating where the authoritative stuff >> begins >> and ends. >> >> We have this problem with the Incubator website, too. It started off with >> buckets of poorly-thought-through text scooped out of mailing lists and >> dumped >> into version control. Years later, certain portions of it have been >> carefully >> wordsmithed or even negotiated under high heat; as a result, making a >> minor >> change has the potential to obliterate a great deal of other people's hard >> work. But from just looking at the surface, you can't tell what's >> garbage and >> what's crucial. >> >> Personally, I'm not eager to spend a lot of cycles negotiating large >> revisions >> to highly-utilized governance documentation under such a flawed regime. >> I'd >> rather that we limit ourselves to small tweaks, or if we're going to go >> all >> out, draw up a set of default bylaws which will in the future be set off >> from >> other documentation and subject to review-then-commit by some governing >> body >> charged with oversight. > Some good points in there. I know you want to revise the incubator site > and I wish you well on your efforts to do so because I agree it needs it., > However I just want to change this one document, and it shouldn't require > the restructuring of a site, so I want to separate the two efforts, > although maybe this effort will influence yours. > > So how about this: I will go all out and rewrite this one document so it > will demarcate what is authoritative and what isn't. And I will try to > make it clear that the goal of the document is to define a set of default > by-laws. And I will retain the entirety of the old document for > historical reference. To do so, I will insert the rewrite at the > beginning of the document after I get lazy consensus on the following text > which will go at the very beginning. > > This document is under revision. The original can be found here > (#link_to_original_further_down). All decision based on the > original document remain valid and the original document remains > valid until further notice. The text color of the original > document has been changed to (brown) to help delineate the > boundaries of the original content. > > All authoritative sections will be demarcated with: > > --this section is authoritative-- > > And end with: > > --end of authoritative section-- > > My understanding is that only the code-modification and release voting > approval type is authoritative. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > >> >>> Below is my >>> proposed version, and below it is the svn diff in case that makes it >>> easier to see what changed. Most of the changes were made at the >>> beginning. >> >> The formatting of the diff is messed up because of line wrapping by your >> email >> client. Please take the time to present such a costly-to-review patch in >> a >> way which accommodates your potential reviewers. I suggest posting a >> link to >> a persistent paste created using <https://paste.apache.org>. > And with the above disclaimer, instead of using paste.a.o, I propose to > revise this document using CMS and/or SVN. That way we can track changes, > and I can use color and other HTML features to show changes, and you can > use your favorite tools to see the patch as well, although the first > commit will just look like a giant insert. And yes, I will push these > revisions live via commit-then-review since they are under disclaimer, > although you can certainly convince me to just leave them on the stage. > > But don't panic, I won't commit anything until I get 72-hour lazy > consensus on the disclaimer. > > -Alex > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
