Matt, I modified the requirement for 2 committers in our coding guidelines to a single review to be consistent with our bylaws. thank you for pointing that out
29.11.2016, 17:09, "Matt Foley" <[email protected]>: > Forgive me, but this is text editing so I’m going to get editorial. > > A. In the current Bylaws, > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Apache+Metron+Bylaws , > there are two paragraphs that might be affected by this change. The first is > a bullet under “Voting”, which says: > > -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this > vote counts as a veto. 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. > > I suggest that this should read: > > -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this > vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must > include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with > no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is > required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be > appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of action. > > B. Second, under “Approvals”, there is currently: > > A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must be > accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The > validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a > binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - > merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must > lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not > withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a > timely manner. > > I suggest that this should read: > > A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a veto > is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation giving the > reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if challenged, can be > confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This does not necessarily signify > agreement with the veto - merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with > a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their > veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must > be reversed in a timely manner. > > C. The above changes impact the semantics of PMC votes for new committers and > new PMC members. Under “Actions” these votes are specified to be by > “consensus approval”. Consensus means “no -1 votes”, in other words a -1 is a > veto. Yet we’ve just declared that vetoes are only valid for code changes, > not people votes. So these parts of the “Actions” section need to be > clarified. > > D. There is an inconsistency in the “Actions” : “Code Change” paragraph. It > says “The code can be committed after the first +1.” But in > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Development+Guidelines , > section “Merge requirements”, second bullet, it says “There should be 2 > parties besides the committer that have reviewed the patch before merge.” > This inconsistency should be resolved by changing one of the two sentences. > > Thanks, > --Matt > > On 11/29/16, 3:30 PM, "Casey Stella" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, I can agree with that. I believe the procedure for this is to vote > on the bylaws change and a simple majority of the PMC members is required > to ratify. > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:27 PM, James Sirota <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Guys, any thoughts on this? > > > > 11.11.2016, 16:50, "James Sirota" <[email protected]>: > > > going through the Apache Maturity Model we have to respond to the > > following point: > > > > > > CS40In Apache projects, vetoes are only valid for code commits and are > > justified by a technical explanation, as per the Apache voting rules > > defined in CS30. > > > > > > The voting section of our bylaws does not currently explicitly define > > this: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Apache+Metron+Bylaws > > > > > > I propose to add the following bullet point to the Voting section of > our > > bylaws: > > > > > > - Vetoes are only valid for code commits and are justified by a > > technical explanation > > > > > > This way we are unambiguously covered with regards to this point upon > > our review during graduation > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > ------------------- > > > Thank you, > > > > > > James Sirota > > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > > > jsirota AT apache DOT org > > > > ------------------- > > Thank you, > > > > James Sirota > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > > jsirota AT apache DOT org > > ------------------- Thank you, James Sirota PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) jsirota AT apache DOT org
