Excellent. Thank you Christopher! -Sean
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> >
