So I want to give everyone one more chance to propose any changes before I bring this up for a vote next Monday - please make sure you've brought up any issues you may have by then. Thanks!
A. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > Whoops - I sent this to private@ and not dev@. Here's my original text > and some of the replies: > > So we're getting fairly close to graduation (we're in the "ready to > graduate" category in the latest Incubator board report!), and we've got a > few things we need to deal with before we actually *do* graduate. One of > them is nailing down project bylaws for voting/approval/releasing/adding > committers/etc. I've got a first draft, based directly on CloudStack's > bylaws (which I quite like) up at https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Bylaws. > CloudStack's, fwiw, is at http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html. > > If you all could read these over and comment/suggest changes/etc, that'd > be good! > > A. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Matt Stephenson <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed project bylaws > To: [email protected] > > > I agree with that, but I don't expect someone to provide a perfect > explanation, or even a halfway decent one at first. The bylaw sounds > pretty strict on providing the complete and unfettered rationale > immediately. > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I understand, but all I'm saying is that if you've got the wherewithal to >> reply with -1, you should be able to at least explain your -1 a little. I >> don't see that as an unreasonable burden in the least. >> >> A. >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matt Stephenson >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> That's a good suggestion. I've been on a few nonprofit boards and had >>> some weird politics ensue as a result of people being on vacation and >>> "voting" occurring. It can create a very negative environment. We're >>> volunteers here, not employees. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > "All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the veto is >>>> appropriate. >>>> > Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be appropriate for a >>>> -1 >>>> > vote to include an alternative course of action." can get a little >>>> tricky >>>> > when people are away or on vacation and have a strong opinion. It's >>>> best to >>>> > let people be heard, so while I agree it's important to keep the ball >>>> > rolling on all votes, if vetoes are going to be rare, i'd rather give >>>> people >>>> > the option of starting a separate discuss thread shortly after a -1 >>>> instead >>>> > of forcing them to have an immediate explanation. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Pulling the andon cord, stopping the entire production line and then >>>> ducking out before anyone can find out why isn't good form IMO. >>>> >>>> I am not so worried about the timeliness - up until a release of the >>>> code occurs, a veto should still be valid, particularly if there is a >>>> good technical reason behind it. So enjoy your vacation - don't worry >>>> about jclouds or the need to toss vetos while on vacation, and when >>>> you get back all of the commit mails and mailing list discussions will >>>> still be there. >>>> >>>> --David >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
