+1 As a fairly new committer I learned some from reading it and realized that I have some "unknown unknowns".
Maybe we can add a line that there is a meeting every wednesday on freenode, because I have the feeling that it is an integral part on how the project is organizing itself. 2014-05-11 17:35 GMT+02:00 Noah Slater <[email protected]>: > Community, > > Please do take the time to review this document. It's not that long, > or that complex. An online reading time calculator said it's about 14 > minutes long. Your input at this stage would be very beneficial for > the project. (Anyone!) > > > > On 7 May 2014 21:07, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello folks, > > > > Please review our propose bylaws: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017 > > > > I'd like a few more eyeballs on this before I move to a vote. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > On 5 May 2014 18:35, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5 May 2014 10:54, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I am not sure to see the interest of these by-laws. They look redundant > >>> to the the *practices* documented inside the apache foundation > >>> documentation: > >> > >> The bylaws of the foundation are here: > >> > >> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html > >> > >> They cover a completely different set of things at the foundation > >> level. And say very little about how projects must function. > >> > >> The resources you linked to are, at best, recommendations. They are > >> not binding. And in some cases they are contradictory. These represent > >> past efforts to distil common practice across many different projects. > >> > >> What our bylaws are doing is saying that we have specifically chosen > >> these interpretations, and that as a community we consider them > >> binding. > >> > >>> - In 4.1 : the sentence "Objecting too far down the road will cause > >>> problems.", and in 4.2 "If lazy consensus is not possible, you can > >>> move to a discussion" . > >>> > >>> The passage from a lazy consensus to a discussion is not clear. How it > >>> is decided? Who is deciding it? > >> > >> Good catch. > >> > >> I have updated the wording to: > >> > >> "If lazy consensus fails (i.e. someone objects) you can start a > >> discussion or you can abandon the proposal." > >> > >> Does this address your concerns? > >> > >>> - In 4.2, there is "Proposals should be explained clearly and come with > >>> adequate justification. Disagreements should be constructive and > >>> ideally come with alternative proposals. The goal is to reach a > positive > >>> outcome for the project, not convince others of your opinion." . > >>> > >>> Sorry but I don't understand that part. How can you expect that people > >>> deeply attached to a project can't have an opinion on how it should > >>> works or be seen by the others? Also what is the point of a discussion > >>> if it's not to convince others that your idea is OK? > >> > >> Interesting comment. > >> > >> If you enter into a discussion with the objective of trying to > >> convince the other person, and they do the same, all that will happen > >> is that you argue with each other until one person runs out of energy. > >> > >> I am more interested in the sort of discussion where both people put > >> aside preconceived notions, swap facts, debate points, and > >> cooperatively work towards a greater shared understanding of what is > >> being discussed. > >> > >> The goal then is not "winning" (i.e. convincing the other) but > >> expanding knowledge. Even if that means that you have been convinced > >> by the other person. > >> > >> Two people spend an hour arguing, and person A convinces person B of > >> their opinion. Typically, we would say that person A has won. > >> > >> Try modelling that discussion so that knowledge and time spent are > >> considered valuable, instead of pride. Both A and B spend time, but > >> only B receives new knowledge. So who is the real winner? > >> > >> This is important for the project because the first type of discussion > >> is not very valuable for us. The second is. That's why I put that the > >> end goal should be to reach a positive outcome for the project. > >> > >>> Rather what is a bad opinion for the project (i.e. an expression of an > >>> idea) there? How do you put the limit? > >> > >> It's not opinions that are bad. Instead: modes of discussion. > >> > >>> - In 3.3 you added the notion of having "good people skills" for > >>> commiters. How do you define "having good people skills"? This notion > >>> completely depends on the culture of the people interacting in the > >>> project. I propose to remove that sentence. It suffices to say that > >>> all contributors of the projects obey to the Code Of Conduct and make > >>> the Code Of Conduct enough generic. > >> > >> How do you define good technical skills? This stuff is always > >> dependant on individual interpretation. My goal here is to make it > >> explicit that as a project we value people skills over technical > >> skills. > >> > >> I would rather have someone who is helpful and cooperative on our > >> lists and who is only an average programmer, than someone who is > >> unhelpful and uncooperative who is an excellent programmer. > >> > >> This is not usually the case for OSS projects. But I believe it is > >> important. Which is why I want to bake it inout our bylaws. > >> > >>> - What about having the PMC members renewed each years by a vote of the > >>> community? So they will be the choice of the community? PMC members > >>> could be proposed during a period by the community and then a vote will > >>> happen. > >> > >> What benefits would this bring? > >> > >>> - The same for a chair. We could make it renewable more often. For > >>> example each 3 or 5 years. > >> > >> I've included this in the draft already. I am proposing that the chair > >> is reelected every year. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- > >> Noah Slater > >> https://twitter.com/nslater > > > > > > > > -- > > Noah Slater > > https://twitter.com/nslater > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater >
