I've taken some of the discussion here and on IRC and I've made my pass. Here's the doc:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/editpage.action?pageId=40511017 Here's the diff: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=40511017&selectedPageVersions=80&selectedPageVersions=79 I've added a lot of clarifying wording, even some entire paras. Pay particular attention to how I have tightened "technical decision" to mean any change to a release branch. Thereby also meaning that vetos can be made for technical decisions. I also added RTC as a decision type, and defined it as needing one +1 vote and no vetos. I think this all makes sense. I was confused for a bit because when I defined RTC is seemed like Lazy Majority but with only one +1 vote and no -1 votes, so why even call them vetos. But then it occurred to me that we call them vetos so we can attach loads of stipulations to them being cast. So that's fine, I guess. Please review! On 20 July 2014 16:26, Simon Metson <[email protected]> wrote: > Noticed a few typos/niggles, I think: > > 2 "to do so in the best interests of the Foundation” -> "to do so in the best > interests of the Foundation and Project” (I suppose I could do something that > was good for ASF but not good for CouchDB… though not sure what…) > > 2.1 "third-party support forms” -> "third-party support forums” > > 3.3 I’d define binding at the end of this section, and explain why it’s > useful and not, as some online definitions call them “noise” or “a waste of > time”, since we want to encourage voting. I think N non-committers could vote > positively on something and get on with it without a binding vote from a > committer/PMC, for instance. > > Otherwise LGTM - thanks for herding this through. > Cheers > Simon > > > On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 23:39, Joan Touzet wrote: > >> Once again everyone, thank you for participating in this discussion, >> even on a weekend. >> >> Everything but the veto point seems resolved at this point - but please >> correct me if I'm wrong. >> >> Latest draft: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017 >> >> Changes since the draft I posted on July 17th: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=40511017&selectedPageVersions=78&selectedPageVersions=70 >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joan Touzet" <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> >> To: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) >> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:36:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote >> >> The main concern here is about "rule lawyering," i.e. upholding the >> letter of the law but not the spirit in which it was intended. I will >> rephrase. >> >> Old language >> ------- >> Finally, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes or imprecise >> language therein, as a weapon against others acting in good faith is neither >> within the spirit of the bylaws themselves nor considered acceptable >> behaviour - and will be dealt with accordingly by the Project Management >> Committee. (or PMC, see 2.4. below) >> ------- >> >> New language >> ------- >> Finally, use of these bylaws to enforce the letter of any rule and not its >> spirit (also known as "rule lawyering") is not acceptable behaviour - and >> will be dealt with accordingly by the Project Management Committee. (or PMC, >> see 2.4. below) >> ------- >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Noah Slater" <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> >> To: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) >> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 3:56:33 PM >> Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote >> >> On 18 July 2014 22:16, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected] >> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: >> >> > > Further, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes or imprecise >> > > language therein, as a weapon against others acting in good faith is >> > > neither within the spirit of the bylaws themselves nor considered >> > > acceptable behaviour - and will be dealt with accordingly by the PMC. >> > >> > >> > >> > ^-- this paragraph might be worth adding to the bylaws. >> >> This "weapon" language really concerns me. Can we reframe it please. >> >> The bylaws, and the code of conduct, are there to enforce certain >> standards of behaviour. And the people who are negatively impacted by >> that behaviour ought to feel like they can apply these documents to >> rectify bad situations. >> >> By putting such frame-biased verbiage in the documents up front, I >> believe we may be robbing them of their potential effectiveness. If I >> felt marginalised or otherwise put upon by something going on in the >> project, and I read that para, what I would take away from it is "do >> not disturb the project, these bylaws are not for your use." >> >> If we want to add a clarification to our official docs, I would >> suggest we add a single sentence to them stating that we expect people >> to act in good faith. Something like that. Nice and simple. We expect >> everyone on the project to act in good faith at all times anyway. So >> I'm not sure we need specific stipulations here. >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater > > > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
