Hi Noah, I have read the whole bylaws. Awesome. Thanks a lot for that excellent work. It is very understandable and I did not miss anything.
I have just a few minor issues: --- "The CouchDB code and project resources are copyright the ASF." shouldn't it read: "The CouchDB code and project resources are copyright of the ASF." (added 'of') --- "Code, and everything else that goes with it, will be seen to by a healthy community over time." I don't understand "... will be seen to by ..." - is that correct? --- "Sometimes, you are not be sure about what the community would want." shouldn't it read: "Sometimes, you might not be sure about what the community would want." (changed 'are' to 'might') --- Cheers Andy On 26 May 2014 18:22, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Changed to "12" months." > > Bob, Jan, Andy, Robert, Dave, Jason: please review my changes and > comments. I took care to include your names next to all of my > annotations, so it should be easy for you to home in on the bits that > apply to you. > > Thanks folks. We're close to getting this official! > > On 21 May 2014 21:54, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 09:47:29PM +0200, Noah Slater wrote: > >> On 12 May 2014 08:40, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > - For the PMC Chair term, we should clarify whether consecutive > means "more than 2 in a row" (unlike the US President) and whether that is > calendar year, fiscal year, etc. > >> > >> This seems like a quirk of the US constitution. To me, consecutive is > >> unbounded. We could keep re-electing the same Chair over and over. Do > >> you have a suggested wording? I can't think of anythign that isn't > >> clunky. > > > > Let it stand, not important enough to change. > > > >> Calendar year and fiscal year are both 12 months, right? Not sure it > >> makes a difference. What we really mean here is 12 months. Should we > >> replace "year" with "12 months" to be clear on this point? > > > > Replace year with "12 months". > > > > > > [on vetos] > >> This was hard to fix, but I replaced the top part of this section with: > > [snip] > > > > Looks good to me, except: > > > >> Is this right? Are we using CTR for the master branches of our repos? > > > > I didn't think we were, I thought the commit was always on a branch, > > then there was a review, and the outcome of the review resulted in a > > merge to master. But I have been out of the loop on where we ended up; > > much of that discussion predates my return to active status. > > > >> I've added a new section, 2.6 Board of Directors: > > > > Fantastic, thank you. > > > > -- > > Joan Touzet | [email protected] | wohali everywhere else > > > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater > -- Andy Wenk Hamburg - Germany RockIt! http://www.couchdb-buch.de http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
