Sean- I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time to do > it yet. > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in this >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC Member". >> >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn. >> >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws? >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not expect >> > we will suffer from too many cooks. >> > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the first >> > vote. >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles >> > > implementation? >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki < >> [email protected] >> > > >wrote: >> > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions. >> > > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So, >> > no >> > > > vote is warranted. >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via >> email >> > > (the >> > > > bylaws even say so right now). >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on >> the >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing, >> > > > > but everything else looks good. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you >> > > > > included that stuff. >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > Hello all, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that >> > arose >> > > > > from >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of >> > > > (excellent) >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions, >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be >> there. >> > > :) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher. >> > > > > > - Voting action changes: >> > > > > > - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list >> > > > > > - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling >> back >> > > to >> > > > > > majority approval) >> > > > > > - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority >> > > approval >> > > > > > - Clarified difference between release plan and product release >> > > > actions >> > > > > > - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition >> > > > > > - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are >> intentionally >> > > not >> > > > > > defined, with references >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on >> > Mike's >> > > > > list >> > > > > > - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for >> > > those >> > > > > [1] >> > > > > > that I could defer to. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other >> > > > issues, I >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call >> a >> > > > second >> > > > > > vote by next week. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283 >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > // Bill Havanki >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions >> > > > // 443.686.9283 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> // Bill Havanki >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions >> // 443.686.9283 >>
