Re: [VOTE] Adopting Bylaws

[Casey Stella]

Hi Taylor,

Thanks for the input; it's always valuable. :)

We have discussed it a bit here and there.  Initially upon project creation
we did vote to prefer review then commit as opposed to the other way around
(discuss thread here
,
vote thread here
).
Most recently, we had some discussion surrounding the bylaws on this thread
.
Specifically, I'm linking the portion of the discussion around what is
different from Apache.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:50 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

> Hi Casey,
>
> I have a few questions (wearing my mentor hat ;) ):
>
> What are the differences between the proposed bylaws and the standard
> Apache procedures and guidelines?
>
> If there are no differences, Metron doesn't even need bylaws.
>
> If there are differences, can you point to a discussion thread, etc. where
> that decision was made?
>
> I'm a big fan of keeping bylaws simple, or even not having them unless
> they deviate from the documented norm. If there are deviations, the bylaws
> could just a set of links to ASF docs, with a section for each deviation
> (e.g. "For W, X, and Y we follow standard ASF practices, but for Z we
> deviate in the following way because...").
>
> I don't want to block moving forward with this. I just want to make sure
> the community has really thought this out.
>
> My vote is +0 (binding). I would gladly change to a +1 given satisfactory
> answers to the question above.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Casey Stella  wrote:
> >
> > This is a vote to adopt the bylaws as they are stated here
> >  >.
> >
> > This is a procedural vote, so it is simple majority rules and there will
> be
> > no vetoes (as directed by the ASF here
> > ).  PMC member votes are
> > binding, but other votes are welcome to show support.  If you are not a
> PMC
> > member, please indicate that your vote is non-binding.
> >
> > Voting methodology is as follows:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Adopt the bylaws as stated here
> >  >.
> > [ ] -1 Do not adopt the bylaws as stated here
> >  >
> > because...
> >
> > This vote will be held open for 72 hours.
>

Re: [VOTE] Adopting Bylaws

[P. Taylor Goetz]

Hi Casey,

I have a few questions (wearing my mentor hat ;) ):

What are the differences between the proposed bylaws and the standard Apache 
procedures and guidelines?

If there are no differences, Metron doesn't even need bylaws.

If there are differences, can you point to a discussion thread, etc. where that 
decision was made?

I'm a big fan of keeping bylaws simple, or even not having them unless they 
deviate from the documented norm. If there are deviations, the bylaws could 
just a set of links to ASF docs, with a section for each deviation (e.g. "For 
W, X, and Y we follow standard ASF practices, but for Z we deviate in the 
following way because...").

I don't want to block moving forward with this. I just want to make sure the 
community has really thought this out.

My vote is +0 (binding). I would gladly change to a +1 given satisfactory 
answers to the question above.

-Taylor

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Casey Stella  wrote:
> 
> This is a vote to adopt the bylaws as they are stated here
> .
> 
> This is a procedural vote, so it is simple majority rules and there will be
> no vetoes (as directed by the ASF here
> ).  PMC member votes are
> binding, but other votes are welcome to show support.  If you are not a PMC
> member, please indicate that your vote is non-binding.
> 
> Voting methodology is as follows:
> 
> [ ] +1 Adopt the bylaws as stated here
> .
> [ ] -1 Do not adopt the bylaws as stated here
> 
> because...
> 
> This vote will be held open for 72 hours.

Re: [VOTE] Adopting Bylaws

[Ryan Merriman]

+1 (binding)

On 8/17/16, 4:44 PM, "Casey Stella"  wrote:

>+1 (binding)
>
>On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:44 PM, David Lyle  wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>> Adopt the bylaws as stated here
>> 
>>
>>.
>>
>> -D...
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Psaltis
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1  (non-binding)  Adopt the bylaws as stated here
>> > 
>>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Casey Stella 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > This is a vote to adopt the bylaws as they are stated here
>> > > > Apache+Metron+Bylaws
>> > >.
>> > >
>> > > This is a procedural vote, so it is simple majority rules and there
>> will
>> > be
>> > > no vetoes (as directed by the ASF here
>> > > ).  PMC member votes
>> are
>> > > binding, but other votes are welcome to show support.  If you are
>>not a
>> > PMC
>> > > member, please indicate that your vote is non-binding.
>> > >
>> > > Voting methodology is as follows:
>> > >
>> > > [ ] +1 Adopt the bylaws as stated here
>> > > > Apache+Metron+Bylaws
>> > >.
>> > > [ ] -1 Do not adopt the bylaws as stated here
>> > > > Apache+Metron+Bylaws
>> > >
>> > >  because...
>> > >
>> > > This vote will be held open for 72 hours.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data 
>> > 
>> > twiiter: @itmdata 
>> >
>>

Re: [VOTE] Adopting Bylaws

[James Sirota]

+1 (binding)

17.08.2016, 11:49, "Casey Stella" :
> This is a vote to adopt the bylaws as they are stated here
> .
>
> This is a procedural vote, so it is simple majority rules and there will be
> no vetoes (as directed by the ASF here
> ). PMC member votes are
> binding, but other votes are welcome to show support. If you are not a PMC
> member, please indicate that your vote is non-binding.
>
> Voting methodology is as follows:
>
> [ ] +1 Adopt the bylaws as stated here
> .
> [ ] -1 Do not adopt the bylaws as stated here
> 
>  because...
>
> This vote will be held open for 72 hours.

--- 
Thank you,

James Sirota
PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
jsirota AT apache DOT org