The list being compulsory makes sense to me, but artificially restricting what the PMC or committers can vote on by requiring a meta-vote first is not in line with my expectations around Apache projects in general.
The rule, as I'm used to it, is to seek consensus first in all matters and then use a vote if needed to clear up ambiguity. A bylaws vote for anything we happen to want to vote on seems excessive. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > I was under the impression that the list was both compulsory and > exhaustive, and if we need to add/remove actions later then we can bring up > a vote on it. > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > >
