A couple of notes: I've been operating under the assumption that at least 1 "+1" committer vote (not including author of contribution) is required for codebase changes. This is a sensible rule imho.. but apparently not a real one :). Thoughts?
Vetoes in response to a commit message -- seems like one should be able to veto *before* a commit message, too. Nobody likes reverting codebases. Inactive / Emeritus committers -- does everyone listed as initial committer actually pass the 6-month requirement? I think Ben Reed and Giri might not, which would make things awkward right off the bat. Distinction between PMC and Committer list -- right now they are identical, correct? Are they normally very different in other projects? Is that the sort of thing that develops over time, and the initial groups tend to be the same? Thanks, -Dmitriy On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Olga Natkovich <ol...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > Alan, > > Thanks for the proposal. Looks good! I have a couple of comments/questions: > > (1) I think all votes need to have a time boundary. For releases and > committers, we used to use 3 business days. I am fine if we choose > different/longer times and different time periods for different types of > votes but I think we should state what they are in the document. > (2) Seems like consensus and even 2/3 votes is very hard to achieve. I > wonder if simple majority would do just as well for all the cases we have. > > Olga > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Gates [mailto:ga...@yahoo-inc.com] > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 6:18 PM > To: pig-user@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] Apache Pig bylaws > > As directed in our vote to become a TLP, we (Pig's PMC) need to set > out bylaws for the project. I have put up a first proposal for these > by laws at http://wiki.apache.org/pig/ProposedByLaws. Please take a > look and give feedback. > > Alan. >
