Ah, I didn't see this thread on time, so here's copy-paste of my comment from the vote thread:
Let's get rid of "RESOLVED, that should the need arise for project-specific bylaws, that the Apache Groovy PMC be tasked with the creation of such bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache Groovy Project; and be it further" as creating project-special bylaws shouldn't be a requirement for a new PMC. ASF bylaws are fine for pretty much all of them. There was a lengthy discussion about it on comdev the other day. Thanks, Cos On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it > in this thread. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]> wrote: > > ,...to enable > > the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the > > realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,.. > > That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis? > > > ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is responsible for > > the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and be it > > further.. > > "the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first > paragraph probably. > > > ...As well as the following committers... > > Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to > make those folks committers on the new TLP right away. > > -Bertrand
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
