Modified the bit in the committer section to read: "Committers are expected to work cooperatively and to have good people skills. This is more important that any other sort of skill."
Reminder to folks: please review this. It is an exceptionally important document, and I'd rather have commentary on it now, than after we vote it in. (And yep: I am aware of the irony of pressuring people to comment on a document that says don't pressure people to comment. But it's important that we bootstrap these expectations properly.) If nobody comments in another three days, I will move this to a vote. I have also decided that unless someone speaks up about it before then, I'll start a thread after we vote this in asking what to do about the chair. (i.e. Should we hold our first election, or do we wait a year?) On 30 April 2014 19:30, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Modified the roles and responsibilities bit again: > > "Hats are an important concept at the ASF. You might have your work > hat and your committer hat, for instance. We expect you to know when > to wear the appropriate hat, and when interacting with the project, to > do so in best interests of the foundation. Failure to do either of > these things is considered a serious dereliction of duty." > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017 > > On 30 April 2014 18:34, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you have not read my draft yet, just ignore this email and read it >> from the start. >> >> If you have, this email summarises my changes. >> >> On 29 April 2014 23:28, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> -> why not explicitly writing "... can contribute to the Apache CouchDB >>> project ..." ? >> >> Fixed. >> >>> -> there is a word missing I think: " by being involved IN the community"? >> >> Fixed. >> >>> "Users can also participate in the project by being involved the community, >>> either at the ASF or elsewhere." >>> >>> -> the intention of this sentence is not completely clear to me ... can you >>> explain it? >>> >>> "Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are >>> contributors." >>> >>> -> this sounds like there is no difference between Users and Contributors >>> ... what is fine for me but is this what it should say here? Maybe it >>> should read: >>> "Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are ALSO >>> contributors." >> >> I have reworded this whole bit to: >> >> "Users can participate in the project by talking about it, providing >> feedback, and helping others. This can be done at the ASF or >> elsewhere, and includes being active on the user mailing list, >> third-party support forms, blogs, and social media. Users who >> participate in this way automatically become contributors." >> >> Does this capture it better? >> >>> First paragraph: in the first sentence singular is used and in the >>> following sentence plural for committer. This is a bit confusing. But maybe >>> this is correct and my lack of knowledge of the English language. >> >> Fixed. >> >>> "... to all of public project infrastructure ..." >>> >>> should read: >>> >>> "... to all of public THE project infrastructure ..." >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 3.4. Project Management Committee >>> >>> -> maybe write "3.4. Project Management Committee (PMC)" >> >> Fixed. >> >>> "This includes:" >>> -> maybe add responsible to take action, if CoC violations are coming to >>> the PMC's attention >> >> This is included under "community management" for now. My intention >> here is that with the CoC we will make a patch to our bylaws to >> include specific rules about how infractions are handled. >> >>> " must be brought for the lists for the decision making process to take >>> place in the open. " >>> >>> -> I don't understand this completely ... can you explain this? Or should >>> it read: >> >> Changed to: >> >> "Any consensus that is achieved away from the lists (for example on >> IRC or in person) must be brought to the lists before anything is >> decided. We have a saying: if it's not on the lists, it didn't happen. >> We take this approach so that the most amount of people have a chance >> to participate." >> >>> "As long as you do your work in the open the community has plenty of >>> opportunity to object." >>> >>> comma after "open" and I think it should read "plenty of opportunities"? >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 4.2. Discussion >>> >>> "Voting is to be considered a failure mode of discussion." >>> >>> -> hm - are there really no situations where a vote is sth. someone wants >>> to have? As far as I understood, voting is the main way to get a clear >>> consensus. >> >> Yeah, I'm trying to get away from that. Voting is permission culture. >> JFDI should be our default mode. Having to take a vote is an >> indication that either this is either a) important, or b) >> controversial. >> >> Changed to: >> >> "Voting is a failure mode of discussion. That doesn't mean you should >> avoid it. It is a very powerful tool that should be used to terminate >> a seemingly interminable discussion. Knowing when to end a discussion >> and call a vote is one of the most useful skills a contributor can >> master." >> >> Also adjusted this text: >> >> "Occasionally people choose to vote with larger amounts to indicate >> extreme feelings, or in fractional amounts to convey strong reluctance >> without the full weight of -1 vote. For the purpose of tallying votes, >> values must be counted as one of the four values above." >> >>> 4.5. Approval Models >>> >>> "The ASF has a voting tool specifically designed to enable this process." >>> >>> -> we should link to a resource here >> >> Fixed. >> >>> >>> 5.1. Subject Tags >>> >>> -> should we add the tag [NEWS] into the list? >> >> Nah, I don't think so. I am not even sure what we use that for yet. >> But we can always patch the doc later. >> >> I have also made the following changes: >> >> To the PMC section, I added: >> >> "From a foundation perspective, the role of the PMC is oversight. The >> PMC must ensure that all legal issues are addressed, that procedure is >> followed, and that each and every release is the product of the >> community as a whole. That is key to our litigation protection >> mechanisms." >> >> "Secondly, the role of the PMC is to further the long term development >> and health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced >> and diverse peer review and collaboration does happen. For this >> reason, one of the most basic tasks of the PMC is the recruitment and >> retainment of project contributors. As a volunteer organisation, >> volunteer time is our most precious resource. And we believe that the >> size, diversity, and health of the community is essential for the >> quality, stability, and robustness of both code and long term social >> structures." >> >> Also changed this bit: >> >> "PMC members are held to a much higher standard than regular community >> members. This includes strict hat wearing, equitable decision making, >> and exemplary conduct." >> >> Added these bits to the chair section: >> >> "It is not a technical leadership position, meaning the chair has no >> special say in ordinary project decisions. But we do think of it as a >> cultural leadership position. Accordingly, position on cultural issues >> is something to consider when electing a chair." >> >> "The chair is the eyes and ears of the board, and reports quarterly on >> developments within the project." >> >> "As an officer of the foundation, the chair has extraordinary powers, >> up-to and including the disbandment of the entire PMC. While the use >> of such powers if obviously not expected, if it could be justified to >> the board, the Chair has the power to enact any sort of change." >> >> Added this to the start of the roles and responsibilities section: >> >> "Your role at the ASF is one assigned to you personally, and is >> bestowed on you by your peers. It is not tied to your job or your >> current employer." >> >> "Hats are key concept at the ASF. You might have your employee hat and >> your personal hat, for instance. We expect committers (and PMC members >> especially) to know when to wear the appropriate hat. Failure to do so >> is a serious dereliction of duty." >> >> "Sometimes it is a good idea to tell people what hat you are wearing. >> For instance, the chair might start an informal email by stating they >> they are not wearing the chair hat, just to be clear about how the >> statements ought to be interpreted." >> >> "Committers and PMC members are never removed because of inactivity. >> Because of the way our decision making works, inactive committers and >> PMC members pose no problem to the project as long as we have enough >> active people for votes to pass. Committers and PMC members will only >> be removed if the position they hold is actively causing problems for >> the project. The chair is one exception to this. An inactive chair can >> be replaced by the PMC, as the chair has certain responsibilities that >> cannot be fulfilled by anyone else." >> >> In the contributor section, I shortened the description to: >> >> "A contributor is someone who is contributing to the project in some >> way. Contributions are not limited to code. Anything that helps to >> promote and improve the project or community counts." >> >> In favour of beefing out the committer section with some additional >> stuff about COPDOC (which I've borrowed from Apache Forrest). And I've >> created a stub contributor guide, as all the details I found myself >> adding about how to contribute started to feel like it should be >> something fluid and not encoded in our bylaws. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COUCHDB/Contributor+Guide >> >> (Big WIP right now. But let's flesh this out as we go.) >> >> I also added: >> >> "Committers are expected to work cooperatively with other >> contributors, and to mentor new contributors if possible. Our >> committers make up the bulk of our active community, and as such, we >> rely on them to help us build and maintain that community." >> >> To lazy consensus, I added: >> >> "It also means that if you make a proposal to the list and nobody >> responds, that should be interpreted as implicit support for your >> idea, and not a lack of interest. This can be hard to get used to but >> is an important part of how we do things." >> >> Under approval models, I added this: >> >> "However, it is important to remember that all participants on a list >> get a vote. And you are encouraged to to vote, even if your vote is >> not binding. This is a good way to get involved in the project and >> helps to inform the decision-making process." >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
