On 6 July 2015 at 11:10, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Branko. I feel (somewhat) sorry for you, when I read your > statement of being disgusted by the viewpoint of others on the matter. I > hope you recover from it soon. > Having been (and still be) in a project that have strong bylaws, limiting voting etc, I know what a PITA project bylaws can be. We fought for about 6 month to get the bylaws changed, to something there was total consensus about. The problem was that the bylaws could only be changed with 2/3 +1 of all PMC, which is quite hard to reach when 1/2 of the PMC no longer are active. Bylaws can in some special cases help a project, but really should not be necesary. If our bylaws and policies are unprecise we should do something centrally and not remedy this problem in 200 projects. rgds jan I. > > Best regards, > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 04.07.2015 18:34, Pierre Smits wrote: > > > Having done a cursory review of the incubator reports to the board for > > > this year (January till May/June 2015), I found that only the SAMOA > > > podling reported working on a project set of bylaws, which without > > > knowing details could encompass and/or incorporate the code of conduct. > > > > I find myself disgusted by this widespread assumption that each project > > needs its own bylaws. WTF for? Are not ASF policies and practices enough > > for everyone? What sort of bylaws could you possibly invent that are > > both a useful extension of these policies and practices /and/ are not > > applicable to other projects? > > > > Per-project bylaws are just a tool for fragmenting the ASF community, in > > other words, they're a bad idea; paper-shuffling at its most useless. > > > > -- Brane > > >
