I removed the "resolving license disputes" bullet from PMC responsibilities, as Billie suggested.
Last call for any other updates before the vote! On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- // Bill Havanki // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
