My sense from the conversations leading up to the vote: 1) I believe the list is comprehensive, in that no other voting actions are contemplated. If we realize we need a new one, we can add it later.
2) We determined that a committer, by ASF rules, cannot truly lose committer status [1], so no removal procedure is defined. Removal of a PMC member is up to the ASF Board [2], so no procedure is defined. 3) I see no harm in adding a definition. 4) I think the "release plan" is the process for cutting a release, while "product release" is for approving a specific RC as the release. For me, a boilerplate release plan with customizations (who is the RM, what tests are needed, time frame for freezes, etc.) would be nice to have laid out. [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Since I didn't technically vote, I guess I will now: > I'm going to give it a -1, pending the resolution the following > issues, and for an opportunity to correct the minor punctuation/typos. > > Specifically, I'd like these addressed before I change my vote: > 1) clarification of whether the ACTIONS list is comprehensive > 2) clarify reinstatement in the absence of a lack of removal procedures > 3) codebase defined (or at least, Adoption of New Codebase clarified) > 4) remove "release plan" as requiring a vote (or discuss), because > while it is nice to coordinate release candidates through a release > manager, I'm not sure it should be strictly necessary that release > candidates be planned, or limited to that release manager. > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > ***Punctuation: > > > > PMC section: > > "PMC from a Foundation perspective is" -> "PMC, from a Foundation > > perspective, is" > > "Secondly " -> "Secondly, " > > "long term" -> "long-term" > > "not coding - but to ensure" -> "not coding, but to ensure" > > "Within the ASF we worry" -> "Within the ASF, we worry" > > > > VETOES section (comma): > > "veto - merely that" -> "veto, merely that" > > > > ***Typos: > > > > APPROVALS section (typo): > > "that -1 votes" -> "than -1 votes" > > > > ***Definitions: > > I would like to see "codebase" defined. It's used throughout, but is > > never clearly defined... particularly in the "Adoption of New > > Codebase" section of the ACTIONS section. > > > > ***Other: > > In the ACTIONS section, it describes reinstatement actions, but not > > removal actions, so it's not clear what reinstatement means. > > > > It should also be made clear that the ACTIONS section is not a > > comprehensive list of actions. > > > > I'm also not sure that the "Release plan" should require a vote, as > > this seems covered by the "Product release" situation. The other > > actions seem to imply a vote is required for that action. Are we > > saying that planning to release requires a vote? If so, I can get on > > board... I just don't remember that happening in the past, so this > > isn't so much a formalization of our existing practices, but also > > establishing a new one as well. And, in this case, I'm not sure it's > > one we need. > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I clarify my vote with it being the first +1 (I approve) :) > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Was pointed out an error in the vote descriptions. They should be: > >>> > >>> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for the > Apache > >>> Accumulo project" > >>> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these bylaws, but accept > them > >>> for the Apache Accumulo project" > >>> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not accept > them > >>> for the Apache Accumulo project because..." > >>> > >>> Obviously, everybody has a choice when they're voting. :) > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > Please vote on the proposed bylaws, as available at > >>> > > >>> > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1574615&view=markup > >>> > > >>> > A nicer to read version is available at > >>> > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html > >>> > > >>> > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 17 March 18:15 UTC. > >>> > > >>> > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the > document > >>> > body will be replaced with "This is version 1 of the bylaws." > >>> Additionally, > >>> > and a link will be added to this document on the nav-bar on the left. > >>> > > >>> > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes and > >>> more > >>> > +1 than -1's. > >>> > > >>> > Mike > >>> > > >>> > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for the > >>> > Apache Accumulo project" > >>> > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these bylaws, but > accept > >>> > them for the Apache Accumulo project" > >>> > [ ] +1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not accept > >>> them > >>> > for the Apache Accumulo project because..." > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> // Bill Havanki > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > >> // 443.686.9283 > -- // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
