nit: can we move it to governance/bylaws.html? I update the blurb after the voting actions list to make clear that the list isn't exhaustive (which I think Christopher had brought up previously).
I also published the current staged changes. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]>wrote: > I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and adding a > missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting > action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring consensus > approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set > the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC > member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO. > > [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS > or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html] > > I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone! > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >
