On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote:
On 19 Jul 2014, at 10:46 , Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB
IRC
- Original Message -
From: Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com
No, just adding that discussion should be done following the code of
conduct.
Again, the code of conduct is not part of this vote, just the bylaws.
Given the current vote count, the bylaws will pass at 23:59 UTC today.
I
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com
No, just adding that discussion should be done following the code of
conduct.
Again, the code of conduct is not part of this vote, just the bylaws.
)
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org (mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org)
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:36:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
The main concern here is about rule lawyering, i.e. upholding the
letter of the law but not the spirit in which
...@apache.org (mailto:nsla...@apache.org)
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org (mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org)
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 3:56:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
On 18 July 2014 22:16, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org
(mailto:j...@apache.org) wrote
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB
IRC meeting today, I will be driving the bylaws and CoC through to votes
and formal adoption.
Based on unaddressed comments in the previous mailing
I would like to see a formal change to R-T-C too. I include the useful notes
that Cloudant follows for this model below. Obviously not all this text belongs
in the bylaws. I suggest it, or a variant of it, belongs on our wiki but is
referenced in the bylaws, which should also cover the rules
On 19 Jul 2014, at 10:46 , Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB
IRC meeting today, I will be driving the bylaws and CoC through to votes
and
On 19 Jul 2014, at 07:49 , Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
Jan says:
- Original Message -
On CTR (commit-then-review): it’s a leftover from the cvs/svn days, in our
git world, what was equivalent to commit in the old model is merge to master
(and release branches) in ours.
+1 to everything Jan says here.
- Original Message -
From: Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:06:14 AM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
On 19 Jul 2014, at 10:46 , Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Robert Samuel Newson
rnew...@apache.org wrote:
I would like to see a formal change to R-T-C too. I include the useful notes
that Cloudant follows for this model below. Obviously not all this text
belongs in the bylaws. I suggest it, or a variant of it,
On 18 July 2014 22:16, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote:
Further, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes or imprecise
language therein, as a weapon against others acting in good faith is
neither within the spirit of the bylaws themselves nor considered
acceptable behaviour - and
Joan, how would you prefer my feedback? Edits made directly to the
doc, or via email? There are some things I'd like to change.
On 17 July 2014 06:23, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB
IRC meeting today, I will be
Here goes, via email:
bolded text for (formatting error?)
copyrighted by (the original copyright here is more correct I believe)
will be supported by a healthy community over time -- was originally
seen to by, meaning, code will be produced by the community. I
believe this edit changes the
think this captures that adequately.
-Joan
- Original Message -
From: Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org
To: Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org
Cc: dev@couchdb.apache.org, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 4:12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough
.
---
- Original Message -
From: Alexander Shorin kxe...@gmail.com
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:02:53 AM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Robert Samuel Newson
rnew...@apache.org wrote:
I would
nsla...@apache.org
Cc: dev@couchdb.apache.org, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 4:12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Here goes, via email:
bolded text for (formatting error?)
copyrighted by (the original copyright
, Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 4:12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Here goes, via email:
bolded text for (formatting error?)
copyrighted by (the original copyright here is more correct I believe
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
The main concern here is about rule lawyering, i.e. upholding the
letter of the law but not the spirit in which it was intended. I will
rephrase.
Old language
---
Finally, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes
On 17 Jul 2014, at 06:23 , Joan Touzet woh...@apache.org wrote:
After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB
IRC meeting today, I will be driving the bylaws and CoC through to votes
and formal adoption.
Based on unaddressed comments in the previous mailing list
I’m really happy with the current form of the bylaws, thanks everyone!
I did some nitpicky updates (clarifications, cross referencing etc. :
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=40511017selectedPageVersions=73selectedPageVersions=70)
that do *not* change
I said:
At this point, the bylaws are mostly stable, but there may remain some
tweaks to the text necessary to ensure they match how we have been
running the project for some time now. We (the PMC) acknowledge that
they are not perfect, but we do not want to let the perfect to be the
enemy of
Jan says:
- Original Message -
On CTR (commit-then-review): it’s a leftover from the cvs/svn days, in our git
world, what was equivalent to commit in the old model is merge to master (and
release branches) in ours. And for that we do distinctly follow
review-then-commit
23 matches
Mail list logo
