Reviving this thread. I've invited others to join in as well.
As a reminder, the proposed changes are here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/%3cC
e743d6a.14a96%25aha...@adobe.com%3e
And my goal is not just to fix up the voting doc, but to try to define a
OK, here is my next offering. The patch form is at [1]
Some notes:
-This offering has 3 new entries to glossary.html as well.
-I was very tempted to move the Veto sections from Voting.html to Glossary
and merge the Consensus Gauging through Silence section from Voting into
Glossary.
-I am also
IMO none of the new glossary entries are worth doing.
Procedural votes are votes about bylaws and other rules
which you will apply to self-govern, so they deserve
an appropriate treatment. Discouraged from voting is
perhaps too harsh a sentiment, what we want those people to
know is their opinion
On Oct 3, 2013 12:52 PM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
e.g. how to vote properly
on personnel issues, and that should entirely suffice. Even Greg
doesn't seem to know what consensus voting means in this context,
Really, Joe? Why did you throw that in? I know what consensus
Really, Greg? Can't you tell you're not using the same
language I am, but I'm using the actual documentation?
Please see
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary#ConsensusApproval
and see how it jives with what you are saying. Personnel
votes are always subject to veto, even committership,
On 10/2/13 12:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I would like to propose a rewrite of [1] by borrowing heavily from [2]
but
making sure to emphasize that projects are allowed to have different
rules
for all
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
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.
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,
For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding
new members to the PMC.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
procedural
The definitions are in a glossary somewhere, the more
we denormalize the locations of our common understandings
the harder it will be to maintain sanity over discussions.
Projects don't need to be encouraged to write their own
bylaws, most don't bother and that's proper. We don't need
to spell
On 10/3/13 8:48 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
procedural (simple majority) votes.
Hmm. Maybe I'm reaching too far, but my hope was to put in this document a
definition
On 10/3/13 9:51 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
The definitions are in a glossary somewhere, the more
we denormalize the locations of our common understandings
the harder it will be to maintain sanity over discussions.
OK, found the glossary. I will try to leverage it more in
(Apologies if you get this twice. I'm having email issues)
Doug,
The thread on members@ was titled Committer Qualifications. I asked a
question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that
committer voting does not have vetoes, and the document at [1] also seems
to say that.
The
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
The thread on members@ was titled Committer Qualifications. I asked a
question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that
committer voting does not have vetoes, and the document at [1] also seems
to say that.
I
Hi Doug,
Sorry to be so picky, but my ultimate goal here is to save time for my
project and all future graduating projects by avoiding as much thrashing
on this kind of issue as possible.
To me, agreeing on the norm is not the same as policy, especially policy
that does not allow for exceptions.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
To me, agreeing on the norm is not the same as policy, especially policy
that does not allow for exceptions.
I agree. Establishing whether there is a norm is a useful first step.
That's what I'm trying to take. Thus far I've
On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
To me, agreeing on the norm is not the same as policy, especially
policy
that does not allow for exceptions.
I agree. Establishing whether there is a norm is a
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the
difference between consensus and unanimous consensus. Your thoughts?
The difference seems to be the quorum requirement of 3 +1 votes in the
case of consensus but not in unanimous consensus.
They
On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
To me, agreeing on the norm is not the same as policy, especially
policy
that does not allow for exceptions.
I
On 10/2/13 11:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
In my tour of the internet since my last post and your reply, it does
appear that most Apache-related information
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
It isn't out of date. It is just plain wrong. It does not reflect any
of our projects, but rather presents an incomplete summary based on
someone's personal experience. It is difficult to do better than that
without
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I would like to propose a rewrite of [1] by borrowing heavily from [2] but
making sure to emphasize that projects are allowed to have different rules
for all of them (or is the code-commit veto required for all projects).
Any
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I would like to propose a rewrite of [1] by borrowing heavily from [2]
but
making sure to emphasize that projects are allowed to have different
On 2 October 2013 21:34, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
I would like to propose a rewrite of [1] by borrowing heavily from [2]
but
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a really interesting perspective: governance rules as code, that can
be unit tested. Heh I like that.
And how does one test that code is working correctly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
30 years and going strong!
Thanks,
Wow. I missed that. I'll work omit for Curator. I'd like to see the grad doc
updated to mention this.
Jordan Zimmerman
On Sep 30, 2013, at 9:21 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I reckon that this is one of the initial steps of becoming a
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Jordan Zimmerman
jor...@jordanzimmerman.com wrote:
Wow. I missed that. I'll work omit for Curator. I'd like to see the grad doc
updated to mention this.
I hope that most projects won't bother. We need rules because we need a
framework to resolve disagreements,
+1 to Marvin's I hope that most projects won't bother although there
needs to be something a little more than a blank piece of paper.
The best approach, IMHO, is to simply make it official that the project
adopts the same byelaws as project x, y or z. Pick an established project
that has a
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
+1 to Marvin's I hope that most projects won't bother although there
needs to be something a little more than a blank piece of paper.
The best approach, IMHO, is to simply make it official that the project
adopts
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wicket we didn't bother to pick bylaws and from what I have seen in
other communities we are better for it.
A huge +1 to that! Apache Bigtop falls into the very same category -- we'll
get real bylaws when we
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback, it's interesting to see that some project don't have
bylaws.
The whole reason this come about is because it's unclear what voting rules are
the default when voting someone in as committer. See [1] (consensus) and [2]
(majority). If -1 is a veto or not is sort of
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
wrote:
+1 to Marvin's I hope that most projects won't bother although there
needs to be something a little more than a blank piece of paper.
The best approach, IMHO, is to simply make it
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole reason this come about is because it's unclear what voting rules
are the default when voting someone in as committer. See [1] (consensus) and
[2] (majority). If -1 is a veto or not is sort of important
Hi,
I see no discrepancy between the documents you cite. The first says
that committer votes are by consensus, the second says that
procedural votes are by majority, but doesn't define procedural and
there's no implication that it includes committer votes.
There was conversation on members@
I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to this conclusion. If
you cannot see members@ how do you know this?
Doug
On Oct 1, 2013 6:06 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I see no discrepancy between the documents you cite. The first says
that committer votes are
Hi,
I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to this conclusion. If
you cannot see members@ how do you know this?
I was informed by a member on Flex private and here [1] which you already
responded to.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://markmail.org/thread/chfagblj72cv7zrt
Lots of people on this list are also on members@, and, so far, none have
objected to my statements. If this continues, it would indicate a lack of
controversy.
Doug
On Oct 1, 2013 7:36 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I don't find the discussion on members@ that comes to
Hi,
Looks like one of the things that fell between the cracks when Apache Flex
become a top level project was drafting up and accepting a set of bylaws.
I see nothing about bylaws on the incubator website, including here [1] where I
would expect it to be.
Should the process on this page be
Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
Looks like one of the things that fell between the cracks when Apache Flex
become a top level project was drafting up and accepting a set of bylaws.
I see nothing about bylaws on the incubator website, including here [1] where
I would expect it to be.
Should
Hi,
I reckon that this is one of the initial steps of becoming a
top-level project (TLP). See the board resolution that created
your TLP: hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws to ...
Thanks for clearing that up. Yes it was mentioned in the resolution, we should
get to it
41 matches
Mail list logo
